Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S NATIONAL ROLL.

I. Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that disabled men discharged from the Civil Defence services are ineligible for the King's National Roll; and will he make arrangements for them to be included?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The future of this scheme is at present under consideration.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that many industrial-concerns are finding great difficulty in maintaining their 5 per cent, quota, in order that they may remain on the King's Roll, owing to the shortage of men?

Mr. Bevin: I am considering the matter from an entirely different aspect. The King's Roll was based on the conditions of the last war, but with totalitarian war and the number of people being injured in industry and in Civil Defence, it is obvious that the King's Roll is not suitable for this war. Therefore, the whole matter is under consideration.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that all contractors have to sign an undertaking that they are on the King's Roll before getting Government contracts?

Mr. Bevin: I recognise that, and that is why the whole matter is now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGHT BAKING.

2. Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in the interests of operative bakers and of their families, as well as in the national interest, he will take steps to stop night baking during the war period?

Mr. Bevin: I have gone fully into this question, and as a result I am not prepared to recommend the prohibition of night baking at the present time. I am satisfied that such a prohibition would not overcome war-time difficulties and would tend to hamper the feeding of the community under war conditions. Further, it would seem that hardship would certainly result to the workpeople in many cases. In communicating this decision recently to the Unions of Bakers, Confectioners and Allied Workers I stated that in my opinion elasticity is essential in the matter of hours and that this can only be obtained by adjustment between the Unions and employer.

Mr. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend consider recommending, where it is possible to dispense with night baking in the interests of the families of the bakers, that such a departure from night baking might conveniently be made?

Mr. Bevin: What is convenient one day may be inconvenient on another day in this war. One might prohibit night baking, and then get a blitz which upsets the whole business. Therefore, I am unable to do as my hon. Friend suggests. I think it is better, under the Trade Board arrangements, for the matter to be arranged in the manner in which it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

5.Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered representations from Mr. G. McNamara, secretary of the Wigan Weavers' Association, relative to the treatment of a member of his union by the Wigan Assistance Board Tribunal, of which he is a member, Miss Rachel Winstanley, 144.-Bridgwater Street, Hindley, Wigan, aged 71 years, who claimed a supplementary old age pension; that the tribunal refused to accept the woman's statement, although it was not challeged to be incorrect, and based their decision accordingly, and that Mr. McNamara withdrew from the tribunal as a protest against the proceedings: and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have considered the representations to which may hon. Friend refers. Mr. McNamara appears to have taken exception to the fact that questions were put


by other members of the tribunal to the appellant to test the accuracy of statements she had made. I cannot see in what respect the tribunal exceeded its functions in so doing, and I do not think that any action on my part is called for. So far as any individual case is concerned the decision of a tribunal is final under the Act. It will be open to the pensioner to make a fresh application if she finds that the Regulations to be made under the Act recently passed by Parliament give her the necessary title.

Mr. Davies: Can the Minister tell us what is the use of Parliament laying down Regulations and then his own officers and the local tribunal declining to accept the facts, although they do not challenge them, and deciding what to do to the old age pensioners on the basis that the facts are incorrect, although those facts are not challenged by them?

Mr Brown: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's general statements on the individual question which he has raised. The fact is that in this case there were facts brought out by the tribunal which led to their decision. It was their decision and not the decision of an official.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIEN DOCTORS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the considerable number of fully qualified foreign doctors in this country, many of whom have been repeatedly tested as to their political reliability, yet are without employment, and some of them a charge on public funds, he will consider deferring arrangements for the bringing over of American doctors to this country until these doctors have been absorbed in the medical service?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. The American doctors are needed mainly for service with the Forces, whilst alien doctors of the European nationalities covered by the Medical Practitioners (Temporary Registration) Order, 1941, are needed mainly for employment in civil hospitals and institutions. The employment of the two classes can therefore proceed concurrently.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that more efforts will be made to place these men,

many of whom are fitted for employment in the Forces, at any rate in services where they would relieve 'the strain on the military hospitals?

Mr. Brown: Certainly. At the moment 100 have been found employment and notified to the General Medical Council for registration and another 150 are under consideration for employment.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of these doctors who are very highly trained are doing manual work in this country? Does he approve of that?

Mr. Brown: I want to get every suitable man employed in his own profession.

Mr. Hannah: Would not the soldiers have very much more confidence in American than in foreign doctors?

Mr. Brown: I do not want to draw any comparison. We want all the doctors we can get.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is my right hon. Friend quite convinced that the Central Medical War Committee are doing all they can to get these people employed?

7.Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the case, of which particulars have been furnished him, of a doctor of German extraction, entitled to practise in this country and classified, after repeated inquiry, as a victim of Nazi oppression, who held a position in a hospital under the Ministry under a contract of service, was interned last June under the policy of general internment; was released in November; but has nevertheless failed to secure further employment, and has been refused payment of the unexpired five months' period of his contract which, for no fault of his own, he was unable to fulfil; and whether he will say what he is prepared to do about this man?

Mr. Brown: I am glad to say that, owing to a recent vacancy in the Emergency Medical Service, it has been possible to offer an appointment to this doctor at the same salary as he received before his internment.

Miss Rathbone: Is it not a fact that this appointment was only offered, though the case was drawn to the attention of the Ministry several months ago, after my Question appeared on the Order Paper?

Mr. Brown: No. I have received no communication from the hon. Lady, who wrote to my predecessor. What has been done was done on the merits of the case, and we have endeavoured to meet the needs of the country and to utilise the skill of this particular man. I wish that the hon. Lady was not so fond of making suggestions of this sort.

Miss Rathbone: Can the Minister give the date on which the appointment was offered? Was it not after my Question appeared on the Order Paper?

Mr. Brown: The offer was made at the end of April, and we have not heard yet whether the doctor has accepted it.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the appeal for 1,000 American doctors, he will make arrangements whereby the many hundred German, Austrian and Czech doctors in this country who are anxious to offer their professional services for the national war effort should be enabled to do so?

Mr. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel Evans) on this subject yesterday.

Mr. Strauss: May we take it that friendly alien doctors in the Pioneer Corps will be given a chance to use their experience and knowledge in medical work, and also that the British Medical Association will not be allowed to stand in the way of their employment?

Mr. Brown: Certainly. I am not aware that there is any intention on the part of the British Medical Association of doing that. The Central Medical War Committee are doing their very best in this matter, and have the most hearty cooperation of the British Medical Association.

Mr. Strauss: Will the Minister answer the first part of my Supplementary Question about doctors serving in the Pioneer Corps?

Mr. Brown: I should like to have notice of that.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is not the hon. Member aware that the British Medical Association have nothing to do with this matter, and that it is a matter for the Central Medical War Committee?

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not possible that some of the American doctors may be of German, Austrian or Czech nationality?

Mr. Brown: That is not a matter for my consideration, but the hon. Member must understand that we are taking every constructive step we can to meet the medical and surgical needs both of the Forces and of the civilian population.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL CAMPS.

Miss Cazalet: asked the Minister of Health why the numbers for each of the national camps have been reduced from 290 to 240, in spite of the fact that the larger number was sanctioned by his Department and the Board of Education?

Mr. E. Brown: The question of the number of children to be admitted to these camps was very carefully examined from the point of view of the maintenance of the children's health in conditions of permanent occupation in war-time, and, on the advice of my medical officers, I concluded that, to mitigate the danger of infection being spread among the children, not more than 48 children should be accommodated in each dormitory. This is the equivalent of 240 children in the five dormitories which constitute the maximum accommodation per camp.

Miss Cazalet: Does this mean that there are 1,500 fewer children going to the camps now than was originally intended?

Mr. Brown: It means that the total at each camp has gone down from 290 to 240. The hon. Lady should remember that the camps were set up for periods of temporary occupation in Summer-time. They are now being used for permanent occupation all the year round, which is a very different matter, and I have very heavy medical responsibilities here.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now make a statement on the new rates of National Health Insurance benefit?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. Not yet.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the Minister aware that we have had the same answer for months, and that this delay is causing great hardship to many people who are sick and injured?

Mr. Brown: I do not think quite the same answer has been given. The hon. Lady will understand that other Ministers are concerned in this matter. I can assure her, however, that the answer will not be long delayed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now supplement his announcement on 16th October last, regarding certain improvements that may be effected in the rate of assessments for specific injuries, as a result of the recommendations of the committee of experts who were then reviewing the matter?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I am glad to be able to say that it has been possible to make many improvements in the scale of assessments for specific injuries normally applicable to casualties in the present war. In the main, the new assessments correspond closely to the 1919 Warrant.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Pensions what steps he has taken to extend to the dependants of the Armed Forces who are in receipt of allowances from the Military Service Allowance Committee under Form 21, the application of the modified terms of the Determination of Needs Act; and is the principle being put into operation for all fresh applicants immediately?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): It has been decided that the principle embodied in the Act shall be adopted in deciding applications for war service grants. The detailed instructions necessary for the purpose are in course of preparation, and will become operative shortly, both for fresh applications, and for cases already in receipt of a grant.

Mr. Dobbie: Can the Minister inform us at what date the instructions will operate?

Mr. Paling: I do not think it is possible to say that at the moment.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is yet in a position to give an answer to the application for a pension by Mrs. Guttridge, of Rotherham, whose husband was a full-time paid

air-raid warden, who was killed at his post as he was preparing to sign for duty, and whose death was caused by a first-aid service vehicle, the details of which the Minister has had forwarded to him?

Sir W. Womersley: I have carefully considered the case to which the hon. Member refers. Mr. Guttridge was not killed at his post, but was in fact run over in the street at about 10 minutes to 10 in the evening while on his way to report for his turn of duty, which began at 10 o'clock. There was no special emergency such as an alert, and there is no evidence that he was doing warden's work of any kind while on his way to the post. In these circumstances it is not possible for me to certify that his injuries arose in the course of his performance of his duties as a warden.

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the fact that this warden was killed within 20 yards of his post, that he was killed by a Service vehicle, and that he was dressed for duty and was proceeding to sign for duty, will the Minister not again consider this case, and does he not understand that it is causing tremendous dissatisfaction?

Sir W. Womersley: We are always getting this tremendous dissatisfaction.

Mr. Dobbie: But it is true.

Sir W. Womersley: It is just sheer nonsense. This scheme was drafted, in consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Employers' Federation, on the distinct understanding that it should coincide as far as possible with workmen's compensation law. I am advised, by eminent legal authorities on workmen's compensation law, that this man would have no case whatever for a claim under workmen's compensation. That is the reason why I have had to refuse it.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely the matter might be reconsidered? It may well be that when this scheme was devised those responsible did not envisage a case of this kind. Will not the Minister undertake to reconsider the matter?

Sir W. Womersley: There is no doubt that there are certain advantages accruing to the claimant because we observed workmen's compensation practices, but you cannot have it both ways. I will certainly go into this matter again and


consult with those whom I consulted before I drafted the scheme, but I cannot make a scheme, which Parliament approved, and then break it.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand the Minister to say that he will look at the matter again, and will he keep this particular case in mind?

Sir W. Womersley: Certainly.

Mr. James Griffiths: The Minister has cited precedents under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, but does he not recognise that the Minister, not the employer, decides the matter?

Sir W. Womersley: I am not the employer of this man. I am in just the same position as those who decide on workmen's compensation, and I have to decide between the two parties concerned.

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment.

Sir W. Womersley: Thank you. I shall "be much obliged.

Mr. Mort: asked the Minister of Pensions whether the funeral allowance of £ 7 10s. recently made under the Personal Injuries Act to relatives of persons killed by enemy action will be applied to all such cases retrospectively?

Sir W. Womersley: Funeral Allowances under Article 20 of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1941, recently issued, may be granted in respect of funerals which took place on or after December 24, 1940, but after full consideration the Government decided that they could not adopt any earlier date.

Mr. Mort: I should like to appeal to the Minister also to reconsider this question. There are very grave cases, particularly in my own constituency, of difference in treatment between families where circumstances are similar. Why not extend the concession to the beginning of the blitz era?

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member is surely aware of the fact that local authorities have power to bury any air-raid victim by granting a State funeral. A grant is made for that purpose and has been available all the time from the Treasury. When the question arose

whether these people should be able to make their own funeral arrangements, I felt it was a very reasonable view, and I succeeded in getting these grants allowed, but I cannot hold out any hope of making the scheme retrospective.

Mr. R. Gibson: What is the principle on which the Minister has fixed the date?

Sir W. Womersley: It is the date fixed by the Government, not by the Minister.

Mr. Gibson: But on what principle has it been fixed?

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state more precisely the circumstances in which compensation can be granted to persons suffering injuries from enemy action whilst participating in air-raid precautions work in connection with livestock; and whether veterinary surgeons, animal students or other persons proceeding to farms to deal with injured livestock are covered in this connection?

Sir W. Womersley: Compensation may be awarded at one or other of the rates laid down in the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme to all persons who suffer war injuries. The types of persons mentioned in the Question are in this respect no different from similar members of the civilian population.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

FIRE PREVENTION.

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to secure the better organisation of street fire parties; and whether he will insure that volunteers for this service will be issued with steel helmets, as was promised by the Regional authorities on 9th January, 1941?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The organisation of such parties according to local requirements has been entrusted to local authorities, who are responsible for the administration of Civil Defence services in their areas. General guidance has already been given to them, and I shall continue to give it in the light of experience gained either generally or locally.


In regard to the latter part of the Question, I would refer to the Reply given on 27th March to my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant).

Dr. Guest: The Minister does not seem to understand that local authorities are directed by precise instructions which limit their powers, and that the original instructions issued have been so hedged about that they have produced what almost amounts to a revolt among a large number of people in the London area. These people say that these conditions are unfair and amount to a breach of faith, and will the Minister not take some action, as he is the responsible person, to organise this service adequately, so that it will function properly?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure that I see any need for so much heat. Directions have been given, but I gather that the controversy arises in this way. The local authority say they will give the degree of protection under the Civil Liabilities Act, and that they will supply equipment to fire parties, to those who officially sign on to the scheme, but some people do not want to serve anywhere except in their own streets. I can understand that feeling, but, on the other hand, we must have power to place fire-bomb parties where they are needed, according to the number of people available and the amount of property to be protected. I think that is the fundamental point in dispute.

Sir William Davison: Is the Minister aware that there is a considerable number of women who have volunteered for this service who are prepared to do fire watching in their own street, but who do not desire to go to another part of the town which they do not know?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that point, but the House must face the fact that if property is to be protected against fire, we must have people where they are needed. We cannot run this war on the basis of everyone deciding in which particular street he will serve.

Dr. Guest: I cannot accept this as an adequate explanation of a very serious situation, and I would press to be allowed to ask a further supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Everyone is always dissatisfied with the answer he gets. We

have a great many Questions on the Order Paper, and we must get on.

Dr. Guest: In that case I will give notice that I will raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

Dr. Guest: asked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to change the anomalous situation in which the same fire-fighters may be eligible for Civil Defence rates of compensation for death or injury in one area and not in another?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend has particular cases in mind, perhaps he will give me details.

Dr. Guest: Is not the Minister aware that he is asking residents in my own constituency, for whom I am speaking at the moment, to do fire watching when they have already undertaken to do it at their places of business? Is he aware that he is refusing the compensation which they get when working in their business premises when they fire watch in their streets? Is not that a ridiculous example of the bad organisation of the fire-fighting service?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member is in a very fierce mood to-day.

Dr. Guest: My constituency is in a very fierce mood, and—

Mr. Speaker: We must pass on to the next Question.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied with the present system of fire fighting under the Regional scheme, and whether he is aware that on many occasions great confusion and hardships have resulted when assistance has been called in by an attacked city?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware that some difficulties have arisen, but the Regional scheme is, on the whole, fulfilling the object for which it was designed. It is being revised, as more pumps can now be made available, and the arrangements for handling the reinforcements have been developed and improved, in the light of experience, in many areas in order to meet any grounds for criticism which may have become apparent.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Does not the solution really lie in a much more uniform handling of this great menace of fire?

Mr. Morrison: It may be, but there is history behind it under which uniformity is not so easy to apply.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Home Secretary what arrangements he has now been able to make to ensure that night fire watchers have reasonable refreshment facilities?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I have been asked to reply to this Question. I am at present unable to add to my reply on this matter to my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 23rd April.

Sir P. Hurd: Is the suggestion of mobile canteens being considered

Major Lloyd George: I cannot say that it is being considered in respect of this particular aspect, because most of our mobile canteens are required for other purposes, but the extension of existing canteen facilities is being considered.

Mr. Mander: How long will it be before the right hon. Gentleman comes to a decision, in view of the fact that thousands of fire watchers in works are not even allowed to have tea?

Major Lloyd George: There is nothing to prevent existing works canteens providing a certain amount for these fire watchers.

Mr. Mander: Are we to understand that existing canteens can draw a ration for fire watchers?

Major Lloyd George: No. I said we are considering given that extension to them.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the shortage of steel helmets supplied to the Kensington Air Raid Precautions Committee, especially for the fire-watching service, less than one-third of the number applied for having so far reached the committee; and what steps he is taking to expedite further deliveries?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is impossible to meet the full demands of all local authorities simultaneously. The first instalment of helmets recommended by the Region was for half of what Kensington, asked for, and these have been supplied. Another instalment is being supplied at an early date. Further supplies will be sent as soon as

the Region has ascertained the number of members of fire parties who have given the necessary undertaking of service.

Sir W. Davison: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, where there are no helmets available, people, many of them women, are not prepared to go to other parts of London with which they are not familiar, while they are prepared to guard their own streets?

Mr. Morrison: There must be some check somewhere. One cannot issue steel helmets at will and on application. It is not unreasonable that there should be registration by local authorities. On the question of the supply, in view of the fairly recent development of the demand for fire-bomb fighting, I think the Ministry of Supply has done a very fine job in producing the quantities it has at great speed.

Dr. Guest: If it is a fact that there must be a check on the issue of steel helmets, why did the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular promising them to all fire fighters in January? That is one of the great causes of the difficulty.

Mr. Morrison: We must know who the volunteer is, and there must be some registration, otherwise there would be no check at all. The hon. Member is wrong in assuming that there was an unconditional promise to issue steel helmets to any who asked for them.

Dr. Guest: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the promise was made and that no condition was attached?

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary what action he is taking to compel owners of houses and flats, who have left them empty to find safer lodgings elsewhere, to play their part in fire watching, either by personal service or by paying for a substitute?

Mr. Mort: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware in many towns which have been bombed it has become a custom for people with means of transport and wealth to leave the area each night, thereby leaving their houses and business premises unprotected and placing an extra burden upon those who remain who take up the duty of fire-watching; and whether he is prepared to make it compulsory that these people should either remain or make provision for fire-watching of their homes or business premises?

Mr. Morrison: I-would refer my hon. Friends to the Reply which I gave on 24th April to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that persons who have left the neighbourhood will either have to watch personally or pay for a substitute? That is not being done at present.

Mr. Morrison: The second is not a practical solution. If one contemplates the enormous employment of full - time fire watchers for residential property, one is contemplating something which, in the present labour situation, we could not live up to. On the other point, there are many difficulties in compelling people to come back from a distance, some of whom may have gone away in the national interest, but there are cases where people are coming back voluntarily to do their firebomb duty, and I hope that many will feel it their duty to do so, but it would be difficult administratively to apply compulsion.

Mr. Mort: My question was based on a voluntary system. Most streets are organised on a voluntary basis, and people who do a day's work are prepared to go fire watching while others who can afford it can go out of the town.

Dr. Guest: Is there any obligation on owners of property at all with regard to fire watching?

Mr. Morrison: No, the obligation is on the occupier.

Dr. Guest: That is a scandal.

Mr. Morrison: But it is so, and there were reasons why it should be so.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it public that local authorities have a right to prosecute owners of property who fail to carry out their responsibility as fire watchers?

Mr. Morrison: No, not the owners, but the local authority can make compulsory schemes, and the initiative is in their hands. If they wish to go in for compulsory enrolment, the proposal will always receive sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend consider the very successful scheme which has been organised at Coventry in recent weeks?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that.

LOOTING.

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the considerable increase in the number of cases of looting; and whether he will circularise magistrates with a view to imposing severe penalties on looters, in order to deter others from committing this crime?

Mr. H. Morrison: The information available in the Home Office does not support the suggestion made in the first part of my hon. Friend's Question. As regards the second part, a Home Office circular was sent to magistrates in October last reminding them of the importance of making it clear that a serious view must be taken of looting offences.

Mr. Culverwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, instead of being shot for these atrocious offences, small fines and sentences of a few weeks' imprisonment are being imposed? Will he not take strong action to ensure that the punishment is made to fit the crime?

Mr. Morrison: We have done our best in the matter by communicating to the courts our view that this is a serious offence. On the other hand, one receives complaints that, in certain cases, the penalties have been too high.

DETENTIONS.

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Home Secretary how many of those detained under Defence Regulation i8b have been brought to trial?

Mr. H. Morrison: The object of Defence Regulation 18B is to provide in time of war power to detain on grounds of national security persons whom it is not possible to deal with by means of criminal proceedings. As a general rule, therefore, no question arises of instituting criminal proceedings against persons so detained, but there have been two cases in which, after a person has been detained under this Regulation, further information has resulted in the institution of criminal proceedings.

Captain Shaw: Can the Minister say on what grounds these two cases were selected? Are they particular cases?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. They were particular cases, and there were particular circumstances, but it would be a misinterpretation of Regulation i8b if it was assumed that there should be proceedings in the courts.

Sir Irving Albery: Was this House fully acquainted with the fact, when it gave authority for this Regulation, that persons arrested on suspicion would never subsequently be brought to trial?

Mr. Morrison: I am perfectly sure the House was aware of that. The Regulation was perfectly plain. It was duly authorised, and I think it is wrong now to raise issues which were perfectly clear at the time, and to have these afterthoughts.

SHELTERS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that one urban district Council has decided to close 92 air-raid shelters because of their unsafe condition; and what steps he is taking to find out who were responsible for the specifications and materials they were constructed with?

Mr, H. Morrison: I presume that this is one of the cases where, at my instance, the local authority has reviewed the condition of its shelters and found a. proportion to be in such a condition as to necessitate their closing. On 20th March I explained in detail, in answer to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), the facts in regard to the official specifications issued during the period of cement shortage. There are, however, indications that in some areas the defects may have been due to bad workmanship and, as my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) on 23rd April, I am looking into this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Tinker: May we take it that the persons guilty of misdoing will be dealt with?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member will appreciate, that there must be some relationship to the legal advice that I may get. If I find cases which would be subject to appropriate action, that action will be taken.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general opinion of the man in the street is that someone ought to be put in prison?

ANIMALS (PROTECTION).

Mr Price: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the grant of £1,000 and £1,500 for equipment is entirely inadequate for the efficient operation of the committee set up to deal with air raid protection for livestock; and whether, in view of the fact that this organisation comprises 1,500 veterinary surgeons and 10,000 assistants drawn from the agricultural community and general public in all parts of the country, he can arrange for more adequate support for the working of this body?

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the answer which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stour-bridge (Mr. R. Morgan) on 2nd April last.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is a very important service in connection with the livestock industry and that, if more money is not available than has been afforded up to now, there will be complete inefficiency in the matter of dealing with the protection of livestock?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep that point in mind. We are in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture on the matter, and their views must be taken into account.

LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in a certain Durham village, of which particulars have been supplied to him, a colliery company turns out all lights from the main whenever there is an elert, plunging the whole village of 9,000 inhabitants in darkness; and whether he will endeavour to ensure a more satisfactory method of securing an adequate black out?

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that the practice to which my hon. Friend refers has been adopted at this village as the result of representations from the local miners' lodge. I am, however, making further inquiry into the matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

RECEPTION AREAS (ACCOMMODATION, CHARGES).

Mr. Levy: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the excessive charges that are being made for accommodation in reception areas; and what measures he is taking to deal with this profiteering?

Mr. E. Brown: I am sending my hon. Friend copies of Answers recently given on the subject, together with copies of the relevant circulars. I shall be glad to have details of any cases which have come to the notice of my hon. Friend so that I may at once look into them.

Mr. Levy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a general complaint all over the country and that consideration of isolated cases will not meet the difficulty? Is he aware that exorbitant rents are being charged in many cases for very poor accommodation?

Mr. Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend will read the documents which I am sending him. There are many cases. I have this matter very much in mind, and I have circularised the local authorities twice on this matter, and that means the whole country. I ask for individual cases, because I am only too keen to follow them up, on this very grave issue.

INTERNEES.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary why, in view of the policy announced on 21st January and 6th March last, there are still no mixed camps for internees on the Isle of Man?

Mr. H. Morrison: The married camp at Port St. Mary in the Isle of Man is to be opened on 8th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDERS (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT).

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the presiding magistrates at a recent sitting of the York juvenile court, when a boy was ordered to be birched; and whether he will circularise magistrates as to the undesirability of inflicting such punishment on juveniles?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have no information about the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers. On the general question of policy, the recent Committee on

Corporal Punishment came unanimously to the conclusion that as a court penalty corporal punishment is not a suitable or effective method of dealing with young offenders, and that opinion is supported by the most experienced juvenile courts. In any circular to magistrates on the subject of the treatment of juvenile offenders I will bear in mind the suggestion that mention should be made of this point.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUGS (SALE).

Sir F. Fremantle: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Pharmaceutical Society to institute proceedings under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, against a co-operative society for selling at one of its grocery branches drugs commonly sold by grocers; whether such action was a departure from an arrangement observed between the Pharmaceutical Society and the Parliamentary Committee of Co-operative Congress since 1934; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. I am advised that a decision of the High Court makes it clear that a multiple shop company which sells poisons known as "Part I poisons" in one of its shops cannot sell any drugs whatever in any of its other shops, even as a subsidiary part of a grocery business carried on therein, unless the sale of the drugs is under the personal control of a registered pharmacist. I have been in communication with the Pharmaceutical Society who are charged with the enforcement of the provisions in question, and I understand that they feel unable, in view of this High Court decision, to adhere to the arrangement made in 1934. The strict application of the Act of 1933 to such cases would, in the view of the Government, impose an unreasonable restriction on departments, other than pharmaceutical departments, of cooperative societies and other multiple shop companies, and a Bill will be introduced at an early date to amend the Act on this point.

Sir F. Fremantle: Will such a Bill take great care not to interfere with the promised control of patent medicines?

Mr. Morrison: I will take that point into account in drafting the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — REMAND HOMES AND APPROVED SCHOOLS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Home Secretary what progress is being made in remedying the shortage of remand homes and of approved schools, for which there is a waiting list of over 1,000?

Mr. H. Morrison: The provision of new schools and remand homes is the responsibility of local authorities. A number of authorities are responding to the request I made on 28th February that they should increase their remand home accommodation by 50 per cent., and some authorities have submitted proposals which have already received my approval; others, however, have not yet informed me of the action they are taking. As regards approved schools, a programme' of expansion was entered upon last year as a result of which, with the aid of voluntary organisations, one school has already been opened, seven more will I hope open shortly, four are in various stages of preparation, and negotiations are on foot for 12 more.

Mr. Adams: If the Minister finds that certain local authorities are not responding, will he again circularise them?

Mr. Morrison: We will follow the matter up in some appropriate way.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NURSERY CENTRES AND SCHOOLS.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the President of the Board of Education the average number of children attending the 86 nursery centres; the age range of the children; and the ratio of trained and voluntary staff at each centre?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): It is not possible to give the number of children actually in attendance at these nursery centres, but they provide accommodation for about 2,700 children. The age range of the children is from two to five years. Local authorities are not asked to supply particulars of the voluntary helpers appointed, but there are at present about 50 teachers working in the centres, the majority of whom are trained. One teacher may, of course, have charge of several centres.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Has my hon. Friend any idea of increasing the numbers of the nursery centres?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Yes, Sir, and they are increasing very rapidly.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Education whether substantial progress is now being made in the provision of additional nursery centres and nursery schools?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The number of nursery centres approved has risen from 15 in December last to 94 to-day. It is not contemplated that additional nursery schools should be provided during the war.

SCHOOL FACILITIES.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Education whether full compulsory education, the provision of requisite school meals and milk, medical inspection and attention are now being provided generally throughout the country as the deprivation of these since the war is a material cause of juvenile delinquency?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Full compulsory education is now being provided generally except in a few areas where for special reasons arising out of the war this is not at present practicable. There has been a great expansion in provision of meals during the past nine months and this is still continuing; difficulties have arisen in regard to supplies of milk, but these have been largely overcome. Medical inspection and treatment have been and are being provided generally throughout the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN LOAN.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the issue of a loan by the Dominion of Canada of registered non-interest bearing certificates to be used by the Government to finance expenditure designed to alleviate distress or human suffering due to war; whether he can give particulars of the loan; and whether he will consider the issue here of some similar loan?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): My right hon. Friend understands that


the loan to which my hon. Friend refers has been issued by the Canadian Government to afford an opportunity for lending by Mennonites and other persons whose religious beliefs preclude investment in securities the proceeds of which are used to finance war expenditure. The loan certificates do not bear interest and they are not transferable. My right hon. Friend sees no reason to contemplate an issue on similar lines in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE (CLAIMS AND ASSISTANCE).

Sir I. Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any pamphlet is being issued explaining the present position concerning damage to property by enemy action and including information concerning compensation, replacement and rebuilding and the conditions for insurance of property, office and works equipment and household chattels?

Captain Crookshank: An explanatory pamphlet, known as Form C.IA, on claims under Part I of the War Damage Act has been issued by the War Damage Commission and is available, free of charge, to claimants at the Commission's Regional offices and at town halls and district valuers' offices. The Board of Trade have also issued explanatory leaflets on the Business and Private Chattels Schemes under Part II of that Act which are obtainable from the Board of Trade or from the insurance companies and Lloyds, who are acting as their agents. My right hon. Friend has arranged for the leaflet issued by the War Damage Commission to be available in the Vote Office, and I understand that the Board of Trade have made similar arrangements with regard to their leaflet.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that an assurance was given by the Government that assistance would be granted at once to people requiring it through enemy action, but that the Assistance Board now announce that the work of the Board is supplementary to any that might be done by any voluntary organisation; since when did the assistance granted by the Board become supplementary to charity granted; and can the position and the people's right be made quite clear?

Captain Crookshank: The assistance given by the Assistance Board is in no way supplementary to that given by voluntary organisations. The Chairman of the Board has on many occasions said that the work of voluntary bodies is complementary to -the assistance which the Board itself provides.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (PENSIONS).

Mr. Horabin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether or not old age pensions are treated as unearned income for Income Tax purposes?

Captain Crookshank: A contributory pension paid under the provisions of the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts qualifies for earned income relief, and the same relief would be given in the case of a non-contributory pension if the old age pensioner's circumstances were such as to render him liable to Income Tax.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (VISITS TO CONSTITUENCIES).

Mr. Mort: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange that Members are given adequate notice of the intention of Ministers visiting their constituencies, and thus obviate the apparent discourtesy of Members not being able to welcome them personally?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I will bring my hon. Friends suggestion to the notice of my colleagues.

Mr. Mort: Can we take it that something tangible will be the result, as my constituency was the subject of a recent visit by the Prime Minister, and as the Member I did not know he was there?

Oral Answers to Questions — BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of arranging for as full information as possible to be made available about the Battle of the Atlantic, in view of the great interest in the question, both in this country and the United States of America?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Will fuller information be given than is given at the present time,


in view of the fact that nothing has been said as to the fate of the supplies sent so generously by America, and whether they have reached these shores or not?

Mr. Attlee: I have answered my hon. Friend's Question in the affirmative; that is to say, what he desires will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

DAIRY HERDS.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, owing to the improved price paid for corn and the lack of encouragement given to the dairy farmer, a large number of important milk producers are selling their herds and going out of production; and does he intend to take any action in the matter?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Substantial encouragement is being given to dairy farmers both in the matter of milk prices, and in preferential treatment for rations of feeding-stuffs. The culling of poor yielders from the dairy herd is desirable in the national interest in order that the limited supplies of feeding-stuffs may be used to the best advantage. I am not aware, however, that a large number of important milk producers are giving up their herds, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars I shall be happy to have inquiries made.

Mr. Price: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the advisability of encouraging the reduction of herds, in view of the fact that it is possible now to retain existing herds and also to increase the output of human food by an effective method of culling?

Mr. Hudson: There is a certain number of animals in herds which are such poor yielders that in the national interest it would be better to slaughter them and have the available foodstuffs spread over the rest. The result of this might well be on balance, not a decrease in milk production, but an increase.

COMMONS AND FIELDS (CULTIVATION).

Earl Winterton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that there is, especially in the home counties, a large number of commons, once closely grazed by stock, now mainly covered with bushes and gorse; and whether, in

view of the shortage of grass-keep likely to result from the ploughing campaign, he will tale' steps, when prisoner-of-war labour is available, to have these commons cleared?

Mr. Hudson: I will certainly bear in mind my noble Friend's suggestion for this use of prisoners of war.

Mr. Thorne: Will it be possible for these common lands to be cultivated on a communal basis?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, in suitable circumstances under the control of my county war agricultural committees.

Earl Winterton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that there are a number of fields in various parts of the Wealden district of Kent, Sussex and Surrey which once grew corn and which are now covered with gorse and thorns; and whether he will instruct the war agricultural committees in the counties in question to call upon the owners or occupiers to clear these fields or, alternatively, have them cleared by the labour of prisoners of war, when available, and recover the cost after the war?

Mr. Hudson: County war agricultural executive committees are fully aware of their powers in relation to the cultivation of the lands referred to, and these powers are already being exercised as freely as the circumstances will permit, bearing in mind the available resources in regard to machinery, labour and fertilisers.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend also call for a report in the late summer or autumn of the number of such fields in the counties in question, which are very considerable? What steps are being taken to deal with them, in view of the fact that they are causing a good deal of public comment?

Mr. Hudson: I hope that before next season we shall have got under cultivation, under the plough, all the fields that have ever been cultivated in history and a good number that have never been cultivated.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEEL SCRAP (ROYAL PARK).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Supply when it is proposed to use the derelict steel fittings dumped in one of the


Royal Parks; and whether he is aware that their continued existence more or less untouched is a deterrent to other salvage work?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Much material has already been moved from the dump to which I assume my hon. and gallant Friend to refer; and, as the result of recent arrangements with the London County Council, it is hoped to clear the dump entirely of scrap metal in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

FOOD LORRIES (THEFT).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the theft of a lorry load of 73 bales of bacon in a North London street during one night; and whether food lorries are allowed to go out with one man only in charge?

Major Lloyd George: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. Officers of the Ministry are cooperating with the Police Authorities in investigating this matter, and I am informed that the lorry and more than two-thirds of the bacon have been recovered. In reply to the second part of the Question, there are no regulations requiring specifically that there should be an attendant in addition to the driver on any road vehicle which may on any occasion be employed for the carriage of food, other than those applicable generally to all mechanical road vehicles. The safe custody of goods in transit is normally the responsibility of the carrier concerned.

Sir T. Moore: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that it would be advisable to bring in such regulations, in view of the experience he has got? This is the second case of the kind.

Major Lloyd George: The problem of the available labour is a very difficult one.

YOUNG CHILDREN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is now able to make a statement with regard to his proposals

for dealing with the special needs of young children requiring such food as eggs and fruit; and whether these will be made available through clinics or through some other channel?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. A statement will be issued on this subject as soon as possible.

Mr. Mander: Does that mean next week, or in a month's time, or when?

Major Lloyd George: It will not be as soon as a week, but it will be done as soon as the arrangement is complete.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the hon. and gallant Member consider making special arrangements for the distribution of the limited supply of oranges among children under five years of age?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, the suggestion will be considered, but up to date the supply of oranges available has not been sufficient to ensure that there would be an equitable distribution.

Dr. Guest: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware of the fact that the black currant, which is a heavy cropper in this country, can supply the same vitamin as is supplied by the orange, and will he take steps to see that that crop is reserved for the use of young children, because it will replace the orange, which certainly they will not get in sufficiently large numbers?

Major Lloyd George: That question is under consideration now.

LIVE POULTRY (SALE).

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that some poulterers are seeking to evade the regulations of his Ministry by selling poultry alive, and thus avoiding the price limitation which is, presumably, based on weight; and what steps are being taken to prevent this evasion?

Major Lloyd George: The fact that some poultry is being sold alive does not necessarily mean that such transactions are evasions of the Poultry (Maximum Prices) Order. In the case of a sale of live poultry, it is provided that the maximum prices applicable under the Order shall be calculated on a weight ten per cent, less than the actual live weight of the poultry. The only exception is where


live birds are sold or purchased for breeding, laying and rearing, and it is provided in the Order that in such a case the purchaser shall have declared in writing to the seller that the purchase is made for one or other of such purposes.

Sir P. Hurd: Has my hon. Friend no knowledge of any breach of these regulations?

Major Lloyd George: I should like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WALES.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Information whether he will give the names of the members appointed on the Advisory Committee for Wales; what organisations were consulted; and who decided the proportionate basis of the representation on the committee?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): The basis of the political representation upon the Advisory Committee was fixed after discussion with the headquarters of the political parties concerned. The remaining members of the committee were nominated in order to provide a body representative of the main interests in Wales not neglecting the variety of outlook between the North and South. As the list of names and the organisations represented is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nine or ten members of this committee are residents of Cardiff, whereas there are whole areas of Wales— for example, all the area West of Swansea —without a single representative? Further, may I ask whether it is true that the body described as the National Labour Party has been given a representative on this committee and that no one in Wales knows of its existence?

Mr. Nicolson: In answer to the first part of the Supplementary Question, it is always possible for the committee to opt further members if they feel that they are not fully represented or do not cover a sufficiently wide area of the

country. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative?

Mr. R. Gibson: Is the Minister representing that it is propaganda for his office to put forward a particular organisation?

Following is a list of the members of the Regional Advisory Committee and of the bodies they represent: —

Name and Representation.

Sir William Cope, Bt., K.C. Conservative.
Mrs. R. T. England, O.B.E. Conservative.
Miss W. James. Conservative.
J. R. Humphreys. Conservative.
G. Morris. Labour
Alderman Tudor Watkins, J.P. Labour.
Mrs. E. Andrews, J.P. Labour.
Alderman H. T. Edwards,' J.P. Labour.
Mrs. G. D. Powell. Liberal.
J. W. Jones. Liberal.
Gomer Owen. Liberal.
J. R. Williams. Liberal National.
Ewan G. Davies. Liberal National.
Councillor W. G. McNeill. National Labour.
R. W. Williams. Trades Union Congress.
Councillor Lewis Lewis. Trades Union Congress.
B. Griffiths. Co-operative Movement.
P. L. Gould. Federation of British Industries.
Iestyn Williams. Federation of British Industries.
Daniel E. James. Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
T. J. Rees. Local Authorities (Education).
Sir William Jenkins, M.P. Local Authorities.
Elfan Rees. N.C.S.S.
Mrs. Clement Davies. W.V.S.
Principal C. A. Edwards, D.Sc, F.R.S. University of Wales.
Principal J. F. Rees (Chairman). University of Wales.
Alderman W. Emyr Williams, LL.B. National Eistedded Council.
Geoffrey Summers. Information Committees (Northern Group).
Alderman J. W. Morgan. Information Committees (S. Western Group).
George Williams. Information Committees (Southern Group).
George Hoare. Information Committees (S. Eastern Group).
Professor W. J. Gruffydd. (Serving in individual capacity.)
Frank Webber. (Serving in individual capacity.)
William Griffith. (Serving in individual capacity.)
Mrs. Hopkin Morris. (Serving in individual capacity.)

The political representatives were nominated by the headquarters organisations of the political parties and the representatives of the Information Committees were chosen by their colleagues. The other members serve at the invitation of the Regional Information Officer acting on my behalf after consultation with the bodies concerned.

The basis of the political representation was agreed in discussions with the Headquarters of the political parties, and the scheme of representation for the rest of the Committee was fixed in consultation with the Regional Information Officer. It is designed to provide a Committee representative of the main interests in Wales not neglecting the variety of outlook between the North and the South.

SHAKESPEARE'S BIRTHDAY (BROADCAST PROGRAMME)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation, on Shakespeare's birthday, St. George's Day, in its overseas service for Germans, put on a programme of Shakespeare's lyrics set to jazz and sung by a crooner; and whether he is satisfied that this kind of broadcast assists our propaganda efforts?

Mr. Nicolson: Shakespeare's birthday was marked in the B.B.C. German programmes by a special talk and by a commentary on the celebrations at Stratford-on-Avon. In the lighter part of the programme, which is specially designed to cater for those in Germany who appreciate jazz music which they cannot get on their own stations, some records were played from an English theatrical production which contained lyrics from Shakespeare's plays. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (LEAVE).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider extending the leave of members of the Royal Air Force stationed in England but resident in Scotland by an appropriate number of hours or days to cover extended distance of travel?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I regret that such a concession would not be practicable.

Mr. Gibson: Will the Minister not consider making leave equitable by substituting the principle of potential presence in the home for absence from the unit as the basis on which leave is given?

Captain Balfour: That particular suggestion has been considered, but I am afraid that the exigencies of the Service

are such that we could not have men going off singly at different times in order to allow them all to have equal times at their homes because the times of journeys vary.

Mr. Gibson: But is it necessary for men going on leave all to go by the same train and come back by the same train?

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING.

Mr. Denman: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether, in order to promote dispersal of petrol and to provide added reserves, he will authorise owners of private motor-cars to use their coupons in hoarding up to one month's ration?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am satisfied that it would not be in the public interest to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAILS (COLLECTION AND DELIVERY).

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Postmaster-General whether, during the period of prolonged summer time, he will arrange for slightly later collections and earlier deliveries of mail?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Allan Chapman): From 4th May to 9thAugust in suburban London the first delivery will begin at 7.15 a.m. and the last collection will be made about 6– 6.30 p.m. (7 p.m. from sub-district sorting office boxes). In Central London the time of the first delivery will not be altered but the last collection will be made at 6.30 p.m. instead of 5.30 p.m. (7 p.m. from head district sorting office boxes). The times of delivery and collection in the Provinces generally will be as during last summer. I have arranged for a copy of the pamphlet setting out these arrangements to be placed in the Library of the House, also for copies to be available to Members in the Post Office of the House of Commons.

Major Adams: Is my hon. Friend aware that this concession will be universally welcomed?

Oral Answers to Questions — TOBACCO SUPPLIES.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will


arrange that adequate supplies of tobacco will be immediately available in towns after a severe air attack?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): It is the practice of manufacturers to send extra supplies of tobacco to any town in which a severe air attack has resulted in destruction of distributors' stocks. The Board of Trade are in constant touch with manufacturers to ensure that these supplies are sent forward as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Strauss: While appreciating that reply, may I ask whether an attempt is made to send the tobacco to these towns on the actual day after the blitz has taken place, because perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that smokers in those towns should have the first call on the tobacco?

Captain Waterhouse: It not infrequently happens that the tobacco supply is not itself destroyed. We have knowledge of what was done at three towns which suffered from air attacks— Sheffield, Coventry and Swansea— and in those cases 5,500,000, 3,000,000 and 6,000,000 cigarettes were sent by the manufacturers forthwith.

Mr. Levy: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that while there is a superabundance of cigarettes in some districts in the towns adjoining there are no cigarettes whatever?

Captain Waterhouse: I am not aware of that fact, and if my hon. Friend will give me any information about it I shall be glad to have it.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask the Minister whether the ban on American tobacco has been removed?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PATENT ROYALTIES (ENEMY COUNTRIES).

Mr. Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether royalties on patents are being paid to enemy subjects; and whether any royalties are being received for British patents from enemy countries?

Captain Waterhouse: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (COLONEL LINDBERGH'S REPORTS).

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether official cognisance was taken of the reports of Colonel Lindbergh on the strength of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics about the time of the pact of Munich?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The records show that, while Colonel Lindbergh's views were available for consideration by His Majesty's Government in September, 1938, no undue significance was attached to them.

Major Adams: Was this man interviewed at the Foreign Office?

Mr. Butler: Not so far as I am aware.

Major Adams: Has not this man consistently used his influence to prevent effective action against Germany?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And with a well-known Lady in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (JAPANESE TRADE CONTROL).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inquire of the Japanese Government whether it is with their knowledge and approval that all right of trading in the occupied areas of China is denied to foreign firms except through Japanese agents?

Mr. Butler: The responsibility for the difficulties experienced by British firms trading in occupied China clearly lies with the Japanese Government, to whom representations have already been made.

Sir A. Knox: Has not the Japanese Foreign Minister stated publicly that Japan closes the door nowhere and to no one?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, and we have drawn the attention of his own Government to that statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — HORSE-RACING.

Mr. Lipson (for Mr. Stokes): asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of


the forthcoming meeting of the National Hunt Committee, at which fixtures for the next winter are arranged, he will make representations regarding the advisability of continuing steeple-chasing until the position regarding feeding-stuffs has been ascertained?

Mr. H. Morrison: As I informed my hon. Friend in the course of my reply to his previous Question on 3rd April, the continuation of racing next winter will be considered in the light of the situation then prevailing.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Sir A. Knox (for Sir W. Davison): asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now inform the House as to the result of the representations which have been made to the German Government, through the protecting Power, with regard to the transfer of officer prisoners of war from Oflag VII C/H to a camp in Poland, and as to the insanitary conditions prevailing at such camp; whether arrangements have now been made for the return of the British officers in question to their original camp; and as to the distribution of winter comforts to these officers?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): Information has been received that the German Government have now had favourable reports on the camp in Canada which was the object of their allegations, and that they have ordered certain improvements to be carried out in the two camps to which British officers have been transferred. His Majesty's Government do not regard the present position as satisfactory, however, and they will continue to press for the return of the British officers to their original camps. As regards the last part of the Question, winter comforts will be distributed to all camps in which British prisoners of war are detained. About 2,500 parcels from the next-of-kin and from the British Red Cross Society have already been delivered at the two camps in question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the forthcoming Business of the House?

The Lord Privy Seal: On the first and second Sitting Days a Debate on the progress of the war will take place on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
On the third Sitting Day we shall take the Committee stage of the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) Bill [Lords] and, if there is time, the Committee stage of the Public and Other Schools (War Conditions) Bill [Lords].

Mr. Lees-Smith: Regarding the Debate on the progress of the war, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, as a number of Members will wish to speak, putting down a Motion enabling the Sittings of the House to be extended, at any rate on the first Sitting Day?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, certainly. I will consult the Prime Minister on the matter. The desire of the Government will be to give the fullest opportunity to Members.

Earl Winterton: Would the Lord Privy Seal consult the Prime Minister also to determine whether or not it will be desirable, in view of the very curtailed time that we have for debate now, and the number of Members who try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, to lengthen the time of the Sittings slightly?

Mr. Attlee: That is a matter for consideration, but on other Business recently the House has risen quite early.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that back benchers would like to take part in the Debate, apart from the big guns who take up most of the time, will not the Government consider giving an extension of time?

Sir A. Knox: Would it not be just as effective if Members were to shorten their speeches?

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that it does not matter whether the House has been able to rise early, and that the important point is that upon important days the House should have more time for Debate?

STANDING ORDERS.

RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE.

I. "That in the case of the Ebbw Vale Urban District Council [Lords] Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That in the case of the East Worcestershire Water [Lords] Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with.—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC AND OTHER SCHOOLS (WAR CONDITIONS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Before I commence to explain the provisions of the Bill, I should like to make it clear that the Bill has nothing to do with what is called the post-war problem of the public schools, that is to say, with any question which may have to be considered after the war of bringing the public schools into relation or association with our State educational system. No doubt that problem will have to be considered when the war is finished, but the Bill, as is clear from its Title and provisions, is purely a war-time Measure and is expressly limited to the war period. Its provisions will automatically terminate when hostilities are concluded. I am aware that this fact will make my speech must less interesting than it would otherwise have been, but it would also have been longer if I had been able to discuss post-war problems; but to do so now would implicate me in the more serious problem of making my present speech completely out of Order. Accordingly, I must confine myself to the provisions of the Bill.
The Bill is designed to help certain schools to meet special difficulties and embarrassments which have arisen as a result of the war and of enemy action. The House will remember that powers are"contained in somewhat analogous Measures, particularly in the Universities and Colleges (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, which dealt with the financial difficulties of Oxford and Cambridge Universities and the colleges there. There was another Act of the same date, the Chartered and other Bodies (Temporary Provisions) Act, dealing with the financial difficulties which might arise in certain other universities. This Bill comes logically as third in a series of measures introduced since the war in order to render assistance to, and to mitigate certain difficulties of, universities, colleges and schools.
When the history of the war comes to be written, a very interesting chapter will be its effect upon the fortunes, and no

doubt upon the future, of these schools. In the beginning of September, 1939, schools in many parts of the country began to migrate. As the war changed, further difficulties arose, and further evacuations took place from the more dangerous zones. Some schools found their fees drop very seriously and in certain cases suffered material damage from enemy action. Broadly speaking, the grant-aided schools of the State system have been free at any rate from one anxiety, in that they have not suffered financial embarrassments. Schools under the local education authorities and in direct relation with the Board of Education have obtained special help. All the State schools have enjoyed the benefit of the State system and of the Government evacuation scheme.
The schools affected by this Bill have not been so well placed. They have had to rely mainly upon their own resources to meet very difficult, unforeseen and almost insurmountable new burdens. Take, for instance, the effects of evacuation. A school originally not far from here has had no fewer than three evacuations in 18 months. When war began it was the welcome guest of two schools on the South coast. Then after the occupation of France it had to transfer to the West country, where it received the hospitality of a university; then at the end of the summer it returned to London, but the air attacks which commenced on a severe scale in August caused it once more to remove to the West country, where it received hospitality in houses and homesteads spread over a wide area. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate the intense anxiety which has beset those responsible for this school. We must give them all credit for the enterprise and perseverance which has enabled them to undertake this hazardous and protracted Odyssey.
Again, some schools have suffered a severe decline in numbers. One very large school not far from London has had its numbers reduced by nearly half. One hopes that that condition of affairs is only temporary, but one can see an immediate problem for those responsible in the adjustment of their staff and overhead expenses to a very substantial decrease in annual income. Then there is the problem of taxation. These schools normally meet their expenses from fees and from their endowment income. They have no


public funds from which to relieve the parents of their pupils, for whom, as we all know, heavy taxation has made matters very difficult. There is also actual damage which premises have suffered. I know there is compensation under the War Damage Act for that, but it will come after the war, and in the meantime the question of repairs, so far as they are carried out, is urgent and necessitates the provision of liquid resources.
Many of these schools have endowments which, by the terms of the trust or the testamentary disposition which created them, cannot at present be used outside those terms or which cannot be more profitably employed so long as those terms are adhered to. Perhaps I had better give one or two instances. In certain cases there are school exhibitions to enable pupils to be sent to a university. It may happen that, owing to the calling-up of so many young men, the prescribed number of candidates is not available and the income is not required for the actual purpose of the trust. Then, in some cases, scholarships are limited to boys from a certain district or parish, and it may happen that boys are not available in that particular district. It does not seem unreasonable to say that the income might be better used in such cases if the terms were widened, so that the money could be applied to the more general maintenance of the school. Another instance occurs to me. In some cases the income is devoted under some trust fund to the purposes of rebuilding premises or erecting new school buildings. In these times it cannot be said that such purposes are urgent. It is impossible to carry them out, and it would seem reasonable to make provision for more urgent needs to be met. In other cases funds are expressly provided for foundation scholars. Sometimes there may be a surplus from such a fund which might well be used to help needy pupils who are not foundation scholars but whose parents have suffered by war damage or difficulties, I think, therefore, that there will be general agreement as regards the modifications in the use of income from these funds during the war.
As the House probably knows, a question has been raised elsewhere as to the use of capital. First of all, I would point out that there is nothing unprece-

dented in the use of capital in an emergency for the purpose of maintaining a college or school, and indeed the House, as recently as 1939, has accepted that principle in the Universities and Colleges Act to which I have just referred. I entirely agree, however—and I am sure the House will be of the same opinion— that it is most undesirable to spend trust capital on current needs unless it is abundantly clear that that capital is superfluous or can be replaced. Let me give three instances which I think are relevant. First of all, in certain cases we find that unspent income has been accumulated and invested as capital. Again, it may be found that certain funds have been destined for the preservation of amenities or for developing a school estate. It seems to me that little harm could result if some part of such a fund were used for preserving the school itself. After all, the school is the central feature of the whole foundation, and if we were to say to it that it must keep such a fund absolutely intact because it would be very useful after the war to extend the school amenities or preserve its estate, that school might very well reply that unless the school were preserved in the meantime, there might be nobody left after the war to enjoy the amenities in question. Further, capital may be avail able as collateral security for a source of income to be repaid later. I very much doubt to-day whether a school could obtain a loan on mortgage, and in any event I think it is undesirable on the grounds of public policy for a school to go into the money market for such a purpose.
From what I have said I think the House will realise that the main purpose of this Bill is to put the schools dealt with by it in a position to exercise a little self-help. That is all we are doing. We have no intention whatever of bolstering up a decaying institution by allowing raids to be made on the bequests of pious founders, still less is there any intention, whatever to carry through a scheme to bring the public schools into relation with our State system by a purely war time Measure of this kind. In view, however, of the anxiety that has been expressed that Trusts may be improperly disregarded, substantial safeguards are proposed in this Bill, and I will draw the attention of the House to them.
First of all, no step of any kind can be taken unless and until the governors make an application. That is a condition precedent to any step at all. Secondly, when as sometimes happens the trustees of a fund are a body separate from the governors, the views of the trustees must be taken and their representations considered. Thirdly, nothing at all can be done under the Bill, and there can be no result of any application, without an Order in Council in the case of the first two categories of schools mentioned in the Bill or, in the other category, without an Order of the Board of Education or the Secretary of State for Scotland. And when the order has been obtained, no trust funds can be diverted, or sinking funds interrupted or varied, without the special consent of the Lord President of the Council in the case Of the first two categories of schools or my consent or that of the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of the other category. Finally, as regards capital no proposal to divert capital can be accepted until both Houses of Parliament have had the opportunity for 40 days to raise objections. I think it desirable that those safeguards should be inserted and I believe they are adequate.
Obviously, finance is the chief difficulty with which, as far as we can in this Bill, we would like to deal and of which We would like to relieve the schools as far as they can be relieved of it. But there are certain other difficulties specified in Clause I (3) paragraphs (c) and (d). For instance, it may be difficult to secure the appointment of governors in these days, or to hold meetings at the proper intervals, or to obtain quorums. There are other minor embarrassments, chiefly of a machinery nature, which one cannot foresee. Provision is made in the Bill to enable such difficulties to be overcome should they arise. The position is that if any school comprised in the Bill wishes to take advantage of the powers in Clause I (3) it can apply for an Order in Council or order. Schools under the Public Schools Acts or Royal Charter have to obtain their authority from the Privy Council and schools under the jurisdiction of the Board of Education or the Secretary of State for Scotland, from the appropriate Department. The Board of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland already possess powers under the Charitable Trusts Act.
One merit of the Bill is that it would enable us to deal in a sensible and expeditious way in war-time with matters, in connection with which the existing procedure is long and cumbersome—appropriate enough in peace time but difficult and indeed undesirable in war time, if only because of the shortage from which so many suffer, of staff and facilities necessary to carry out more complicated arrangements. I hope the House will appreciate that I am as I have said fully sensible of the need and share the desire of the House that the sanctity of trusts and testamentary dispositions should be fully observed and borne in mind. But I do suggest that neither I nor the House can, in these days, ignore the difficulties to which these schools are subject or deliberately refuse them the means of mitigating those difficulties in the way suggested in the Bill. If we refuse to allow this Measure of self-help to the schools, it may well be that in one, or more, or many cases, we shall stand the risk of losing a great deal of what is and has been a great national and educational inheritance. The public schools have played a very important part in our educational development and in our national development too. I hope they will continue to play an important part and 1 suggest that it would be Very Unfair, and indeed Wrong, to take advantage, in the present war-time emergency, of the innumerable difficulties which have fallen upon these schools and for which they are in no way responsible: it would be, I say, wrong to take advantage of such an emergency to prevent them from using, as far as they possibly can, their own resources to overcome acute and unforeseen difficulties. I have tried to combine in this Bill as far as possible a reasonable latitude in dealing with this problem with adequate and proper safeguards, and I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Cove: Before the Debate proceeds there is one question which I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. It was difficult to hear him at times, and he may have dealt with the point already. But could he tell the House, now, what parties are involved in this Bill? Has there been consultation or agreement between representatives of


the governing bodies and of the headmasters, and if so, what other bodies are involved in any agreement which exists?

Mr. Speaker: I think that had better come out in the course of the Debate.

Mr. Cove: May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister seems willing to give a reply to the question now?

Mr. Speaker: In that case I do not mind, but it seems to me more appropriate and convenient that it should be dealt with in the course of the Debate.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am prepared to answer that point now. I did not deal with it during my opening remarks, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would probably have dealt with it later in the Debate. Shortly, the point is this: The initiation of this Bill came from a joint conference of headmasters and governors—five of each, I believe. I understand that at present there is no one body of governors speaking for all and that that is a matter which the governors of schools generally have in hand at present. As far as I know, the initiative taken at the conference to which I refer has not been repudiated by other members of governing bodies.

Mr. Ammon: I think the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has brought out some valuable information, namely, that there is, actually, no body of representative opinion behind this Bill, that is to say, no body which has been appointed in a representative capacity at a conference. At the outset I wish to make it clear that I, for one, regret very much that a Government constituted as this Government is did not take this opportunity to reform the public school system. I think it is a curious anomaly that a time of national emergency—and in this I differ from the right hon. Gentleman—should have been used to bolster up a system which, in the opinion of many people, is to a large extent outworn and which calls for change.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Member is not going to embark upon a debate as to the merits of the public school system.

Mr. Ammon: I am not going to do so, Mr. Speaker, I submit however that in

this case there is involved the supply of money which is meant to maintain the system. [Hon. Members: "No."] To a certain extent, indirectly, the House is being called upon to assist financially in this respect. [Hon. Members: "No."] At any rate, the authority of the State is sought. In this connection I want to point out that the Bill proposes to bolster up a system as to which there is a great deal of dispute about whether it should be allowed to continue or not under present conditions. It has been said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, but it can now be said that the Battle of Britain was won on the playing fields of the provided secondary schools of this country. [Hon. Members: "And all other schools."]
I turn from that to another point. It has been stated in another place that the Labour party supports this Bill and is not against the public school system as now constituted. I say categorically that no one has any warrant for making any such statement on behalf of this party. Again and again, we have given intimation to that effect and I think the right hon. Gentleman when he said that it was not intended to deal with post-war problems, showed an understanding of the fact that this question is in the melting-pot and is a subject for discussion.

Mr. A. Bevan: I thought the hon. Member was going to raise a point concerning your Ruling, Sir, as to how wide and how narrow the Debate was to be. We ought to get that straight now, in preparation for our own speeches, if we are fortunate enough to be called; because I assume, from what you said, that the Debate is to be extremely narrow. It seems difficult to separate the Bill from the implied assumption that the public schools ought to receive this relief if they are to continue.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right; this is a very narrow subject. The Bill merely allows the schools to use their endowments or funds in a manner different from that laid down in the trusts. That is the whole point.

Mr. Bevan: How is it possible for the Bill to commend itself to the House, unless it is thought desirable in so far as it raises the question of relief?

Mr. Speaker: The question of relief does not arise. The only question is whether the funds should be disposed of


in a different manner from that laid down in the trusts.

Mr. Bevan: It is legal relief. They cannot do it unless the House consents for it to be done. So this Bill is relief, in the very real sense of the term.

Mr. Speaker: A trust can never be interfered with unless this House gives power for it to be done. That is what the Bill proposes. There is no question of relief.

Mr. Bevan: I will simply change my words, and say that, unless the House consents to these funds being used in a different manner from that in which it was intended that they should be used, the schools will not receive the funds which they need.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very backhanded way of getting into the Debate some expression of dislike of the public school system. I cannot allow it in this Debate.

Mr. Bevan: May I respectfully submit that it would give rise to considerable, and even more acerbity in Debate than otherwise would arise if the House were asked to do a novel and unusual thing in this way, without an opportunity of debating the merits of the institutions which it is proposed should be helped?

Mr. Speaker: There is no suggestion of help. There is no question of help or relief in this Bill at all. I think the Minister pointed that out.

Mr. Ammon: I suggest that the House is being asked to remedy a grievance, and that, therefore, we must discuss in some measure the position of the public schools.

Mr. Speaker: In my original Ruling, I described exactly what the Bill is for. It is to enable the trust deeds to be altered and the money to be disposed of in a different manner. There is no question of any extra money.

Mr. Bevan: But how are we to argue that the trust deeds ought not to be altered?

Mr. Speaker: The Bill must be discussed on its merits.

Mr. Ammon: I only hope. Sir, that the Debate will not be drawn too narrowly. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a number of reasons why the public schools

find themselves in this position—difficulties over evacuation, the fact that they have been bombed out, that they have suffered from shortage of staff, and so on. But those difficulties are common to all businesses. We have to remember that the term "public schools," in this connection is a misnomer. They are privately run businesses, and they have to put up with the same problems as face other private businesses. They are not in the same position as State-aided schools. The term "public schools" leads to misunderstanding. I see no reason for this Bill. Under the Education Acts, money can be supplied for higher education, under the local authorities or under the ordinary education system. These organisations should have taken their stand and have been allowed to do the best they could under the ordinary competitive system, like any other businesses.
Too much consideration is being given by this Government—and that I regret, the Government being constituted as it is —to the maintenance of caste and class distinctions. The provision of money in this way helps that process. I would point out, in passing, another direction in which this is being done. I have raised this matter again and again. We all applaud our gallant Air Force. In that force a commissioned officer, doing the same work as a sergeant pilot, gets a higher decoration because he comes from a different school. This Bill proposes to perpetuate that kind of thing. It is very difficult, indeed, to debate the Bill under the conditions of your Ruling, Sir; but the Bill proposes, by the money which is being voted [Hon. Members: "No."]—by the provision that this House is making for further sums of money [Hon. Members: "No."]—unless this House passes this Bill the schools cannot get the money to carry on; that is where this House comes in, and why we wish to discuss the Bill fully in every respect.
Whether you like it or not, the effect of passing this Bill will be to give these organisations power to raid certain funds intended for other purposes, and so to perpetuate the caste system of education. The State spends large sums on providing University scholarships, and it seems incongruous to propose that scholarship funds should be


alienated for an entirely different purpose. If a school has funds left to it for scholarships and there is not sufficient demand in that school for the use of those funds, it would be far better to throw them open to much wider application than' to use them for this particular purpose. There is nothing in this Bill that says that the problems for which this money is to be used are to be war-time problems; they may be problems going a long time back. I know that the insertion of the Amendment passed in another place provides that nothing can be done to interfere With these funds without this House having an opportunity to discuss the matter. That is, in itself, a valuable safeguard, and it is an answer to some of the criticisms which have been expressed.
I feel that we can do no more than register our strong disappointment and disapproval — disappointment that an opportunity like this has been missed, that, with a Government constituted as the present Government is, the opportunity has not been seized to make a further sweeping amendment of the public schools system. The Minister has given us clearly to understand that this Bill is not to be used to prejudice the post-war position. The Amendment which was inserted in the Bill provides that any order
shall state specifically the maximum amount of the capital that may be applied by virtue of the powers
given under this Bill. I presume that that means that a stated sum only, and not the whole of the resources available, may be utilised. We have the right to some clarity with regard to that particular thing. If this Bill Is carried, it can be utilised to the disadvantage of poorer people. It means that money that has been left by people to provide opportunities of higher education for the children of parents unable to pay high fees at secondary schools, and perhaps at the universities, may be used for other purposes. The Bill, by diminishing these funds, will certainly have the effect of reducing the number of poorer. students going to public schools. Therefore, a blow is being aimed at the poorer students, while those who are in a more favourable economic position will be more strongly entrenched. I have in mind, for instance, the school at Sutton Valence,

in Kent, in connection' with which a certain amount of money has been made available for the benefit of poorer students. It will be possible to take away funds allocated for the use of students in Battersea in order that they may go to Sutton Valence School and use them for any other purpose in connection with the school fabric, salaries and so forth. I imagine that the answer that my hon. Friend will give is that the matter will have to come before the House, and therefore we shall have an opportunity to raise the question and dispute any proposals, but there are certain inherent risks in that procedure, and it may well mean that there may be a considerable loss in that connection.
I agree that, in present circumstances, parents may find themselves at a considerable disadvantage because of the war and hot be able to allow their sons to continue attendance at a particular school; nevertheless, though I do not ask my hon. Friends on this side of the House to vote against the Bill, we feel that we have every right to express our disapproval of it and to make it clear that we are not prepared to accept it in any way as prejudicing what may happen- in the future. We shall take the opportunity as and when it arises to raise the whole question of the public school system.
There is one other point that I want to raise. The House has been called in indirectly to show some concern about the finances of these public schools, and therefore we have the right to demand that these schools shall publish their accounts, just as the universities are compelled to publish their accounts, in order that the public may know how the money is spent. At the present time nobody knows anything about their funds or how they are spent. Now that the assistance of the House of Commons is being asked and they want the approval of the House in diverting any of these funds, the House of Commons has the right to say, "Let us see exactly what your balance sheet is like, and how the money is being spent. Tell us what is your income and expenditure." We shall then have a much clearer picture of the whole problem.
I had hoped that it would have been possible to have arranged for a somewhat wider field of discussion than your ruling, Mr. Speaker, has allowed to us, though I do not challenge or controvert


your Ruling. But I hope that sufficient has been said to indicate that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction, and not only on this side of the House, that a Bill such as this should be brought forward at this time when an opportunity might have been taken to raise the whole system and to consider whether or not the time had not come for a thorough overhaul and change in the public school system. Though, as I say, I shall certainly not vote against the Bill, I feel that a great opportunity has been missed and that the Government are taking advantage of the present opportunity to perpetuate the system, which they have no right to do, and which is likely to lead to friction which ought not to be allowed to arise in present circumstances.

Sir Percy Harris: One of the tragedies of the great conflict in which the country is engaged is that all forms of education, the elementary, secondary and public school systems, have suffered, and, what is the really serious part of it, the children in particular. It is not only in the public schools, which are a comparatively small matter, but in London children from all sections of society and in all kinds of schools have lost education, and it will want a lot of leadership on the part of the Board of Education if we are to make good the loss of education to the coming generation. As I understand it—and I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker—this is a comparatively small, and, although it has implications, an unimportant Bill, but I think we are entitled to have the assurance that, while this Bill should not be used to destroy the so-called public school, it should at the same time not be used to bolster up schools that are in decay or out of date and are not worth preserving The larger policy of the whole nation wants exploring, but it is more suitable for a Royal Commission than for a debate, incidentally, on a little Bill of this kind. I hope that the President of the Board of Education will use his powerful influence to persuade the Government either to appoint a Royal Commission to deal with the whole public school system or, if that is not possible, to adopt the shorter and sometimes more practical method of appointing a Select Committee of this House. It is long overdue, and I think it would represent the general feeling of the House.
The one assurance that I want is that, when the Board administers the provisions of this Bill, care will be taken that money meant for poor scholars will not be used for the purpose of restoring or repairing buildings. The scholar should be the primary charge. We have heard a good deal already about the playing fields of Eton. It might be argued that this war is on the way to being won on the hills of Harrow, for the Prime Minister was a distinguished scholar of that school. But anybody who has studied the history of that great school of John Lyon's will know that the foundation originally provided for helping the education of the poor scholar. But the poorer scholars are not to be found on the Hill, but in what is familiarly called the lower school of John Lyon, which is an excellent school. We want some assurance, when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply, that the main responsibility will be to safeguard the interests of the poorer scholars and to see that facilities for scholarships are not reduced and that money intended for that purpose is not to be diverted to building or to repairing buildings.

Mr. Hely - Hutchinson: I have the advantage of having left my notes at home to-day. The House will share that advantage, because my speech will be the shorter. In the course of the speech by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), in which he appeared to pour a specially selected type of oil on troubled waters, he made two very valuable contributions to the Debate. He pointed out that these so-called public schools are in fact private enterprise in a free economy and properly subject to its pains and penalties, and that there is no basis at all for appropriating taxpayers' money to support this or any other private enterprise. I heartily agree with that view. He made another interesting suggestion, which was that the so-called public schools might give greater publicity to their accounts. I certainly hope they will. I have never attempted to prevent any disclosure of any of my own money affairs, because I have nothing in my life to be ashamed of; and I do not think the public schools have anything in their lives of which to be ashamed. On the subject of scholarships for the benefit of those who are not well-off, may I say, as one who as a boy benefited from just


such a scholarship, that I have always determined— and I will fulfil that determination— to repay the school which benefited me and so gave me the means whereby I have been able to live my life, in order that some other boy shall obtain the same benefits that I myself was lucky enough to obtain.
When I first heard about this Bill I am bound to say that I felt considerable apprehension, both on general and special grounds. On general grounds there is the secular danger of interfering with endowment and testamentary dispositions. An interesting case came up only the other day and was reported in the "Scotsman" of 5th March. It was a case where the Corporation of Glasgow applied to the Court of Session for an alteration in the terms of a charitable endowment in order that they could apply the funds to some purpose other than those which were set forth in the trust deed. The court disallowed their application. Unfortunately, I have not got the article with me, having left it at home, so I am unable to quote the dignified words in which their Lordships gave expression to their disapproval. But perhaps I might without lèse majestè give an indication of what was said. It was to the effect that if this kind of thing was allowed to happen, it would choke off people from giving any endowments at all in the future. So I am glad to see, by the terms of the Bill and the explanation of it given by my right hon. Friend, that no such procedure is here contemplated.
The special apprehension which was aroused in my mind was the fear lest the circumstances of the war might be used to affect unfavourably the possibility of public schools being able after the war to help themselves as private enterprise always should help itself. That fear is also disabused by the terms of the Bill and the explanation which the President of the Board of Education gave. In his closing words my right hon. Friend referred briefly to the maintenance of a great national heritage. As I do not wish to transgress your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not in any way discuss whether or not it is a great national heritage. I would only say that on the specific question of the finances of so-called public schools— which are in fact private schools— it is vitally necessary that they should help

themselves in order that they may maintain their character of private enterprise. I hope my right hon. Friend will be interested to be kept informed of the ways and means which are now available and can be extended, whereby this heritage, such as it is, can be expanded over an ever-widening field, so that it may be possible in the future to extend its benefits and also remove some of the misconceptions which surround this whole subject.

Mr. A. Bevan: I must confess that I rise to speak to-day with considerable difficulty, because the Ruling which you gave earlier, Mr. Speaker, has amputated a very large portion of my speech. I had intended to make some very general observations about public schools, but I gather that it is slightly more in order to praise them than to condemn them. So I will not transgress your Ruling in any way, although I must say that I might be tempted, in view of the fact that this issue cannot be properly ventilated in so narrow a Debate, to ask the House to Divide and deny the Government the powers for which they are now asking. However, that will depend to some extent on what happens.
This is a very important Bill, narrow though it is, because it interferes between two citizens by diverting to one citizen the money intended for another. It is no use saying that the public schools are asking that the money intended for one part of the school shall now be made available for the whole of the school or that the capital invested on behalf of the public schools should now be realised as income. What is really intended is that the money which is left by one citizen, sometimes 100 years ago, shall, by Act of Parliament, be diverted to the use of another citizen. This Measure means that money left a long time ago to finance scholarships for boys in certain schools shall be used to pay the salaries of school masters at this time. That is a more realistic way of putting it and a more correct description of what is intended to be done. I thought myself that it would have been proper to say that so unusual an instrument should be exerted only on behalf of some institutions which are so desirable that there is universal agreement about it. Instead of that, this unusual procedure is being asked for an behalf of the. maintenance of institutions about which there is very considerable disagree-


ment, and I suggest that the emotions that were introduced into the remarks thrown across the Floor half an hour ago show that the products of the public school system are unable to think of these matters without a certain sacerdotal note entering into their speeches.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bevan: I cannot help believing the worst of education that prevents a man from taking a dispassionate interest in public affairs of this kind and causes him to be so heated that he cannot think clearly and correctly about it. I intend to oppose the Bill, first, because I do not think it proper for money to be diverted in that way and, secondly, on the ground of—

Dr. Russell Thomas: Emotion?

Mr. Bevan: If emotion is clear in my speech, I am certain that it would interfere with my argument. I say that on general public grounds it is undesirable for this relief to be given. I understand that in boarding schools in Great Britain there are at the present time some 20,000 pupils, and that in the whole public school system of England, Wales and Scotland there are about 70,000 pupils. It is only a few weeks ago that the House was asked to pass a Bill enabling the President of the Board of Trade to close down a very large number of private businesses because it was not in the public interest, and did not conduce to the successful prosecution of the war, for them to continue. No relief was suggested for them. They are to be closed down and their business is to be absorbed by large corporations. I have not heard of any Government Measure to enable those businesses to start again after the war, or even to compensate them adequately for the death which the House has inflicted upon them. But when the same war threatens to close down, wholly or partially, that institution which is the public school system, its devotees and the victims of its education come to the House and ask for assistance.
I suggest that if it is desirable for small businesses to be closed down in the peace sector in order that their labour and resources may be transferred to the war sector, it is equally desirable that class

luxuries of this sort should be discontinued in time of war, and that those establishments should be closed down in the interests of war economy and their students allowed to enjoy a better education in the broader streams of the State schools. If I had a child, I would not inflict a public school education upon him. The machinery of the State schools is in existence, and in many places in Great Britain— I admit in areas that are not quite so safe— there are empty seats. There is available the whole of that machinery, which could easily absorb children from the public schools. Those great establishments could be closed down and a large number of women who are working in them could join the Minister of Labour's women's army and many of the gardeners employed by them could be transferred to other work. A great deal of the expenditure that is now being wasted could be used to feed the war effort. Instead of this being done, instead of the Minister coming to the House to ask for powers to close down a form of private enterprise which is unnecessarily absorbing the national energy, he asks the House to maintain the waste.

Mr. Speaker: That might be good reasoning on some other Bill altogether, but not on this Bill.

Mr. Bevan: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling is becoming so narrow that it is becoming impossible to discuss the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: When a Bill is narrow it does not follow that one must necessarily widen the Debate. As the Bill is narrow, the hon. Member must confine himself to the proposals made in the Bill, and not discuss some other Bill that he would like to see on the Statute Book.

Mr. Bevan: In my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, the Bill is exceedingly wide. The Minister said, in precise terms, that unless the House passed this Measure it might happen that some public schools would be closed, wholly or partially. I am making the contention that in the interests of the war, it is desirable that that should happen. Is that out of Order?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it has very much sense.

Mr. Bevan: You and I have been in conflict on many occasions, Mr. Speaker,


and I respectfully ask you to withdraw the remark you have made. You have no business to say that.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that we can sometimes chaff one another in the House without losing our tempers.

Mr. Bevan: I submit that I have kept my temper in this matter, and that it has nothing to do with your functions to describe statements made in the House. I submit that the remark I made was relevant. My remark will not be regarded as senseless in my constituency, where miners are being tied to the pits at the present time in the interests of war economy, and are now to learn that the House has been passing a Bill to enable 20,000 young boys and 70,000 other boys to be maintained in schools which ought to be closed in the interests of the war.

Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to be dictated to by the hon. Member. I have told the House my Ruling with regard to the Debate, and how much can be said upon the Bill, and I stick to that Ruling.

Mr. Bevan: And I shall stick to my point.

Mr. Speaker: I shall have to ask the hon. Member to resume his seat if he goes on in that way.

Mr. Bevan: I respectfully suggest that we are entitled to argue that these powers should be denied to the Government, and if they are denied to the Government, the institutions will be closed down and thereby there will be an economy in. the interests of the war effort. That, I submit, is. a relevant proposition, and it is one of the main reasons I oppose the Bill. In view of the course which the Debate has taken, I shall, if I get any support, Divide the House against the Bill at the end of the Debate. I have nothing more to say about the matter. I think the Government ought not to have brought forward this Bill. I believe that it will cause a great deal of strong feeling in the country, that it will be very greatly resented by large numbers of people, and that it will do a considerable disservice to that unity which up to now has prevailed.

Mr. R. Morgan: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I

find very great difficulty in addressing myself strictly to the Bill, but in accordance with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I intend so to do. While the Minister was speaking, I wanted to put one or two questions to him, but I refrained from interrupting. With regard to the endowed schools, is it not a fact that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners al ready have the powers which it is sought to give them under this Bill? I seem to remember many occasions when endowed schools have applied for, and have received, the sanction of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to vary their trust deeds.
As has been pointed out, the main purpose of this scheme is not to link up the public schools with the State system. I agree with an hon. Member opposite in wishing that this were a Bill to do that. Had it been such a Bill, it would have given us a chance to discuss the real merits and advantages of the public school system. The purpose of this Bill is to promote the economy and efficiency of the schools concerned and referred to in the Bill. Would it be out of Order to say that there are many ways of effecting economy and efficiency— I emphasise efficiency— in our public school system by reorganisation within the schools them selves? For instance, the elimination of the farming-out system is one thing that occurs to me. If public schools are to economise, as is presumed in this Bill, it means that one of two things will happen. Either these public schools are going to do less and give less to the public, or they are going to be assisted in a way which is not outlined in this Bill.
I fee, unlike the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), that we should do nothing to close down the schools If this country, because our schools are already insufficient in numbers owing to enemy action. If we shut any section or class of schools, we should be doing wrong. Some of us have in mind what happened during the last war; although it is not contemplated in this war, I think it is bound to come. Many schools, for the very same reason which impelled this scheme, were forced then by reason of their tottering finances to come to this House and ask for assistance, but when money was again plentiful and the need for assistance did not arise, the help from this House was calmly renounced, and the doors of these institutions were bolted


and barred once more. We have a real grievance or complaint because this Bill does not go further. The difficulties of the President of the Board of Education are numerous. We have dual and quadruple control, and now we are to introduce a fifth control about which we have never heard. Perhaps, whoever replies to this Debate will give us some idea when we may expect a further Bill to enable us to link up the secondary school system and the public school system in a sound, sane and rational State educational scheme.

Mr. Cove: Like other hon. Members, I find myself in some difficulty owing to the narrow scope of this Bill. However, I hope it will be in order for me to say that, as far as the provisions of this Measure are concerned, I am deeply disappointed with the reaction of the Government. I should have thought that the Government, as a war-time measure, would have faced up to the needs of our educational system. As a matter of fact there is no warrant on educational grounds for this Bill at all. Nor is there any warrant for it from the point of view of the quality of education or the numbers involved. How many pupils are involved by this measure? The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was a little wrong in his figures. I believe it will be found that the number of pupils involved is about 25,000 to 30,000.

Mr. Bevan: I said 70,000 were involved in the public school system as a whole.

Mr. Cove: They turn out about 10,000 pupils a year. It is therefore perfectly obvious that this Bill makes no contribution to the educational efficiency of this country. What is it doing? It is doing what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said. It is diverting specific funds in order to maintain an institution— an institution which has as its primary mark a social purpose. There can be no doubt that this Bill is designed to maintain an educational social institution, with social implications attaching to it, during a period in which it finds itself in some difficulty. I am sorry that the Government have not waited a little time in order to present a large-scale educational policy. Why should we wait until the end of the war for that? I am afraid that if we wait until then, the President of the Board of Education will not have such a good scheme as he would desire. I think

it would be far better during a period of war, when men's minds are ready for it and when the country is read for it, for the right hon. Gentleman to bring for ward a large-scale proposal.
Piecemeal legislation of this kind, designed to keep this or that institution alive, which does not help any larger scheme, will thwart and retard the bringing forward of that scheme. The mind of the Government is diverted to relatively small matters from the educational point of view, and therefore they will not be quick in bringing forward a larger educational scheme. I do not wish to prolong the Debate, having regard to the Ruling, but I must protest very strongly indeed that a Government in which labour is represented should, in the middle of a war for democracy, be concerned with the preservation of plutocratic schools. That is what is happening. I am waiting anxiously to hear the Parliamentary Secretary reply to the Debate. I always like to hear the hon. Member, and I shall be interested to hear him justify this policy, because, after all, he has no love for private schools. I have some recollection of his attitude on a committee, when my hon. Friend was against the preservation of these schools. To-day, I am afraid he has the task imposed upon him, which I do not think he will enjoy, although he may pretend to enjoy it, of justifying this Measure. After all, he has a past in this connection, and I should have thought he would have been able to influence the Government to bring for ward a Measure designed on a broad basis to deal with the educational problems which confront this country.

Mr. Lipson: This is a very modest Bill, hut it has aroused a surprising amount of heat and controversy. I am afraid it suggests that our so-called national unity is not as strong and real as one would like it to be. I must say that it gives point to the plea which has been made, that it would be a good thing if the whole question of public schools could be taken out of the realm of controversy. Perhaps the best way to do that would be, as has been suggested, through the appointment of a Select Committee of this House at a time when there is a National Government. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) taunted the Government, because they included members of the Labour party, for bring-


ing forward a Bill of this kind. I would say, All honour to the Labour Members in the Government for not using the opportunity to further purely party views or party legislation, and for recognising that in a National Government every interest has a right to be considered. When the taunt is made against the Parliamentary Secretary that he supports this Bill in spite of his past record for condemning private schools, I think he may well remind the hon. Member for Aberavon that there are private schools and private schools, and that the private schools which were very rightly and properly condemned by the Parliamentary Secretary are not the private schools which are likely to benefit by the Bill.
I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words in support of it, and I do so with the greater pleasure because I represent a constituency whose chief industry is education and which has for its town's motto "Health and Learning." I regard this as an educational Measure. When I regard the modest nature of the proposals themselves, I feel justified in adapting the words used by the Prime Minister in another connection: "Never has an institution which has done so much for this country—

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. We have been specifically refused the right to criticise the public schools, and I rise with some indignation to ask that those who wish to praise public schools should be similarly gagged.

Mr. Lipson: I am subject to the Ruling of the Chair, and, if I have gone outside the terms of the Bill, it is for the Chair to remind me and not the hon. Member.

Mr. Bevan: A Member is entitled to raise a point of Order. I have just had a very nasty quarrel with the Chair on this matter. I object to sitting here to listen to a speech which praises the public schools when I have been denied a chance of criticising them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member must have patience. When I think the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) is out of Order, I will stop him.

Mr. Lipson: And I promise you, Sir, that I will accept your Ruling unquestion-

ingly. The Bill does not ask for the expenditure of any public money. It simply asks that money which has been left to the public schools for one purpose may be diverted to other purposes, which are really very closely associated with it, and I am surprised that hon. Members should object to the diversion of money which was left a long time ago for a purpose not quite identified with that. I think such objection would have been more properly made from this side of the House, because it is part of their political philosophy to divert a great deal of money intended for one purpose to another. It has been urged by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) that one result of the Bill would be to injure the poorer schools and that money intended for poorer scholars would not be used for that purpose. That is a misreading of the intention of the Bill. One of its purposes is that, out of money belonging to the public schools, it will be possible to enable poorer children to obtain the benefit of those institutions, which otherwise they would not be allowed to do. There fore it is quite untrue that there is any thing in the Bill which is a blow at the poorer children.
The critics of the Bill do not seem to have realised that this is a war time Measure, that its operations are limited to the period of the war and that the difficulties which have made it necessary have been caused by the war. Some of them were mentioned by my right hon. Friend. I would add another— the requisitioning of public school buildings by Government Departments. That has materially added to the financial difficulties of a number of public schools, and it is therefore only reasonable that, when those schools ask that they should be allowed to use their own money in the way in which they think present circumstances will enable them best to fulfil their purpose, the Government should be willing to give them that measure of relief.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend how many schools there are which have the right to be termed public schools, as far as the Bill is concerned, and how many of them are likely to benefit by the Measure. It is clear that only some schools will benefit, and it will only give partial relief to them. I do not regard this as purely piecemeal legislation. I believe it is vital for the survival of certain schools. The suggestion that


children from them could be sent to secondary schools is not a very practical one, because all our secondary schools are full to overflowing. [Interruption.] In the safer areas it is true. If the hon. Member is suggesting that these children should be sent to dangerous areas, per haps he will get up and say so, but I am not prepared to support it. The suggestion of the hon. Member for North Camberwell that, if the public schools want money for scholarships, they should seek public funds, seems to come at a very strange time. This is surely the wrong time to make unnecessary demands on public funds, and, if the public schools have within their own resources, funds which they are not able to use, surely during war-time one ought to give them every facility for using them. I welcome the Kill as a temporary Measure which will bring some relief to certain schools, and I hope my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to the suggestion that fuller consideration should be given to the much bigger problem.

Mr. Creech Jones: I regret that I, too, must have a somewhat critical attitude to the Bill. I take the view that it raises the whole question of the public schools in relation to the State educational system. I should very much have preferred that my right hon. Friend had come to the House with a comprehensive statement on the whole of educational policy and explained the necessity for the Bill in relation to the larger educational problem. As a number of Members have pointed out, the preservation of certain of the public schools depends largely on the passage of this Bill. I have no fond liking for the public school system. It has brought a dual system into our national educational arrangements which, from a social point of view, has not been healthy but has tended to create in education a snobbery which has had the most unfortunate results. I do not believe that the public schools have made any great contribution to educational method, practice and experiment. Consequently I am not enthusiastic about Measures which tend to perpetuate a type of institution which as such, could very well be dispensed with.
I would have been far happier if the proposals for diverting funds had taken the form of the conservation of moneys for scholarship use in the days after the

war. If incomes from scholarship endowments cannot be used at the present time, they should go into a public educational fund, and, when our educational system is reorganised, made available for giving wider and more equal facilities to children belonging to all sections of the community.
The Bill opens out the whole question of endowments. I agree with what has been said by other Members that the time is ripe for some inquiry into the origin, history and use of endowment funds. I would like to see alongside such an inquiry an investigation into the place of the public schools in our national educational system. I hope that as a result of this Measure the Board will take steps to insist that schools shall publish their accounts and that a public and intelligible statement shall be made periodically as to the amounts of educational endowments, the sources, how controlled, and how expended, in order that the public may be better informed of the situation in regard to these funds.
I would also ask that immediate consideration be given to the possibilities of further economies. If money has to be diverted in order to maintain these schools we have a right to ask whether, in order to avoid such diversion, other economies might not be effected. There readily occurs to one a number of means of effecting economies in these rather expensively run institutions which might conceivably ease their financial position.

Mr. Lipson: What are the economies which the hon. Member suggests?

Mr. Creech Jones: I would suggest, for instance, that there might be some grouping of these schools or certain changes in respect to the kind and extent of provision that is made at the schools. There are other ways in which economies might easily be made. That is not a matter which can be discussed under the Ruling of the Chair. We cannot regard public schools as just private institutions. Education is a social responsibility, and we can not divest the social effects of the public school system from the working of the rest of our educational system. Accordingly, I suggest that if the public is to make some provision, whether financially or otherwise, to perpetuate the existence of these institutions, a beginning ought to be made in public representation on the


somewhat archaic governing bodies which control these schools. For these reasons, I regret that this Bill has been introduced at this stage, and I hope that at the earliest date the President of the Board of Education will give us a comprehensive statement on educational policy and will deal with the rather controversial point as to the relations in the days to come of the public school to the rest of the State educational system.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): As the second Clause of this Bill deals with Scotland, I thought it wise that at this moment I should intervene to explain Scotland's position as affected by the Measure. With an accuracy for which the Scottish education system is famous, we do not call private schools public schools or public schools private schools. We know exactly what those phrases mean. A public school in Scotland is a school under the control of an elected authority, the representatives of which are directly responsible to the electors in the particular locality. On the other hand, we have private schools. We do not, therefore, get mixed up with these things in Scotland as we do in England. Scotland has one or two schools which will be affected by this Bill, and they come under two categories. Incidentally, Scotland gave a lead to England by inquiring into endowments. We had a Royal Commission which sat for about eight years. I can vividly remember the discussions when that Commission was set up. It was suggested that it would take only three years to do its work, and I well remember pointing out that it would take far longer. It actually took eight years, and even then it did not complete its task. It did, however, survey the field of endowments in Scotland. This Bill will apply to
any school with respect to the endowments of which the Secretary of State has power to frame schemes under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Acts, 1928 to 1935.
These Acts empower the Secretary of State to frame schemes for any educational endowments more than 20 years old and, at the request of the governing body, for any educational endowments less than 20 years old. No school, therefore, is excluded 'from the scope of the Bill merely because its endowments, are of recent date. The

Scottish schools to which this Bill will apply are in two categories. The first consists of seven schools affiliated to the Headmasters' Conference. They are Edinburgh Academy, Fettes College, George Watson's Boys College, Glasgow Academy, Loretto School, Merchiston Castle School and Trinity College, Glen-almond. The second category consists of any school, whether under an education authority or under voluntary managers, if it has an endowment. The power which the Bill will confer on the Secretary of State cannot be exercised unless the governing body of the school or the education authority wish to take advantage of it. If they do, they will make application to the Secretary of State, who, if he is satisfied, may by order
make such provision as appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing economy or efficiency in the carrying on of the work of the school under war conditions.
There seems to be a fear in the minds of several hon. Members opposite that its application to England— though I am not going to deal with that aspect— may take away certain rights in connection with secondary education. In Scotland we are in the happy position that it is the inherent right of every child born in Scotland whose capacity to benefit by secondary education can be proved by tests set by the local authority on standards fixed by the department of Education to be provided with free secondary education. For many years I served on an education authority in whose area education was free right from the infants school up to the doors of the university; there were no fee-paying pupils within that particular county. Therefore, there is not the same fear in my mind as some hon Members have.
I am quite prepared to defend this Bill. I am not at this Box defending the private school systems of England or Scotland; that is not my duty. My duty is to defend this Bill, with which I am associated, and which deals not with the general problems of education, which will have to be tackled in the future, possibly before the war ends, and certainly immediately the war ends, but with problems which have cropped -up as a result of war conditions. Frequently we have to bring in Bills which do not deal with major problems but with immediate problems which have cropped up during the war.


I thought it wise to point out to my Scottish colleagues and td the Scottish people that in the matter of free secondary education this Bill will not affect Scotland by one iota. It may be that a second-class form of education may become too expensive for those who have paid for it up to the present. I have always thought that our public education system in Scot land provided the best, and I will defend it against any education provided in our private schools, and if people are still wealthy enough to buy that second-class form of education, expensive though it may be, they can just go on buying it, but we will provide the best possible education in our public schools in Scot land.
The Order to which 1 have previously referred may deal with such matters as (a) the use of the income or, with proper safeguards, the capital of scholarship funds or other revenues assigned for specific objects for the general purposes of the school; (b) the suspension or reduction of sinking fund payments; (c) the variation of rules regulating the appointment of governors arid the con duct of school business. If the Order confers powers under (a) and (b) it must provide that those powers shall not be exercised without the consent of the Secretary of State. If the Order confers powers to deal with capital funds it must give the full particulars and must be laid before Parliament for 40 days, and if either House passes a Resolution against the Order it shall not come into operation. In Scotland the Secretary of State a ready has powers to deal With all these matters by schemes made under the Educational Endowment (Scotland) Acts, but the procedure under those Acts is complicated and takes a lot of time, and this Bill confers no new powers or status on any of the schools, nor does it give the Secretary of State a larger measure of control than he already possesses. All it does is to provide a simpler and more expeditious method of meeting difficulties due to the war. Although few of the Scottish schools to which it applies may have any substantial endowments, we thought it was desirable to give them the same facilities as will be available to similar schools in England. I associate myself with this Bill, and, as a Labour member of the Government, without any^ apology, because it is a Measure to enable

us to deal with problems as they arise, and in supporting it I am in no way sacrificing my ideals in connection with education.

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who is not now in his place, said he did not think arty Members from the old public schools could take a dispassionate view of this Bill, and of the rather more controversial matter which the Chair does not permit us to speak about, but as an old Harrovian I hope that I shall be able to take a dispassionate view, especially when I say that I too agree with him in desiring to see a revolution in our educational system in which, however, I hope the public schools will play their part. But I do not think the present time, in the middle of the war, is the occasion for bringing about a revolution in our educational system, and certainly it is not the occasion to throttle and destroy those old institutions which may perform a useful function, provided they are completely altered in their social structure and brought into our educational system. Therefore, I do not agree with some of my hon. Friends on this side who object to this Bill. I think my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said he objected to the Bill because it would perpetuate a class system of education. I do not see that that is the case.

Mr. Cove: The hon. Member has just said that he is an old Harrovian.

Mr. Price: If the hon. Member had listened to me' he would have heard me express the hope that, although I am an old Harrovian I can take an objective view of this matter. I hope he will give me the satisfaction of thinking that I can do so. I can see in this Bill the thin end of the wedge of State control over the public schools, and although I know I should be on delicate grounds if I expanded my remarks on that point, never the less I think I am in Order in just hinting at it. This is an important Measure because, in a very small way, it introduces a form of State control through the right of the Minister of Education to give sanction to financial alterations which the governors suggest and which this House can, if necessary, stop by a negative Resolution. I am satisfied that the public schools themselves are realising


that they have to fulfil an entirely new function. I know there are governors and head masters who have realised it for some time, and although I agree that there may be dangers in permitting governors to alter the application of their funds— which may have the effect of decreasing the number of poor students going into public schools— still, there is a safeguard against that in the Bill.
There are many public schools to-day which, for purely financial reasons, because there are not so many rich people to send their sons to those schools are looking out for ways of trying to keep their heads above water financially. If, however, there are governors who seek to abuse the power conferred upon them by this Bill, I am satisfied that there will be power in the Minister of Education and in this House, by negative Resolution, to prevent abuses of that kind. Because I see in this Bill the possibility of extending still further the principle of State control, so that ultimately we shall be able to get a national system of education in which the public schools play a certain part, and I think a useful part, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Hannah: Surely it would be a very bad day when any considerable body of opinion in this country wanted to abolish our public schools. That they must be open to the people is common ground all round, I think, but it is obvious that after the war, it may not be possible to keep up the public schools on the old lines. There will not be enough people with sufficient money to send their boys to such schools. We must, by scholar ship or otherwise, open these public schools to all children. That is, I hope, common ground to all parties and all sections of our community. The idea of one educational system controlled by the Government is totalitarian and not democratic. We do not want it here. Even in the United States, where they started that system, public schools have grown up and have been found to play a very useful part. I hope, therefore, that we shall be able to bring the public schools into the general system of education in this country and that the Bill will help to a certain extent to do so.
As far as the details of the Bill are concerned, there is one point on which

we want a little further information, about applying, during the war period,
the income or capital of any endowment of the school for purposes other than those for which, apart from the provisions of the Order in Council or order, such income or capital might be applied.
I hope that those words will not mean that capital can be used for temporary purposes and spent as income. It is extremely necessary to keep the endowments of those schools, very insufficient in many cases, completely intact. I welcome the Bill as a small beginning of what, I hope, will be a very great reform, bringing the whole of the education of the country into one general co-ordinated system, but preserving, as one of our most priceless heritages, the great traditions of the past which are centred round our public schools. These public schools are not merely Eton, Winchester, Harrow and Westminster; they comprise some of the smallest schools like Birkenhead and quite small organisations of that kind, that have their very useful part to play. If anybody says that these schools are in every case merely the refuges of the rich and merely centres of reaction, it is pure ignorance.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I rise to support the Bill. I may say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) that totalitarian—

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present. House counted; and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Lindsay: The reason why I feel impelled to speak, if only for minutes, is that, having been at the Board of Education for three years and the Bill being an entirely new departure, not in accordance with previous policy—a departure due to the war— I would like to express my own views on it for what they are worth. I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston that, in totalitarian Scotland, we have had a system of public education for many years. Indeed, at the time when education was being linked up with Factory Acts and so forth in England, there was a public system of education in Scotland which took in, for the most part, all children in the country. Therefore, it will not be very difficult for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say that he is not giving away any principle by his support of the Bill. I leave my hon. Friend, who is to follow


me, to discuss with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) their own private conflict, if there be one, on the Bill. In a previous Debate it is on record that he said:
' When my hon. Friends on this side have the responsibility of government, one of the things we shall have to do is to see that the ancient endowments of education are restored to the people for whom they were left."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1940; col. 338, Vol. 358.]
I have no doubt that he will stick to that expression of opinion. He has, by his presence, as chairman of a committee on private schools, also given his views on the whole question of that class of school in no uncertain language. These questions, however, are quite outside the scope of the Bill. One of my reasons for supporting the Bill is that it is purely technical. My own view with regard to the public schools— which I am not allowed to express in general, owing to previous Rulings— is in accord with the step taken in the Bill. They must put their own house in order. It will be a great pity if the heat which was beginning to be engendered is to follow the discussion which will inevitably take place in the future and, I hope, in the fairly near future.
My own view is that the public schools, apart from having a long and glorious history and being undeniably very much a part of the educational system, are a private venture. There is no such thing in law as a public school. It is undefined. I took some pains the other day to look up the latest and most erudite authority I could consult, and I could still find no definition. I therefore take it that the Bill refers for the most part to endowed schools, some of them, perhaps many of them, founded in the middle of last century, which was the prolific period for the foundation of schools. Others, of course, date back to the Tudors and the Stuarts. It is no new thing to divert the purposes of ancient trusts. My hon. Friend behind me seemed to think that that was a very novel and revolutionary thing, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will know some of the troubles we have had recently. In my own constituency money has been left by ancient founders of trusts for the specific purpose of sending children to the academy or the university. I have seen that money taken away from the locality — and it is locality very often that

matters more than anything else— and devoted to educational research. That was rather difficult for some of us to swallow at the time, but I take it that this is a Bill merely to help certain endowed schools put their own houses in order.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): Not necessarily always endowed schools.

Mr. Lindsay: Perhaps not necessarily endowed schools, but schools which receive no public money.

Mr. Ede: There is a number of these schools which are endowed schools, but which also come in the third category of schools, which are both grant-and rate-aided

Mr. Lindsay: But schools included in the public schools list— I think there are 183 of them— include a great many which are rate-aided or grant-aided, and I take it that these schools will not come into the scheme,

Mr. Ede: This Bill is drawn so that application may be made by the governors of these schools for a variation under the Bill if it becomes necessary. The hon. Member knows very well the infinite variety of relationships which exist between the local authorities and the various types of schools, and of the extent to which they have guarantees or grants.

Mr. Lindsay: That is very important; I have gathered, in consultation with my hon. Friend, that schools which, for instance, had a special grant from the State or the local authority would not be included. If so, other questions will arise, because some of these schools have free places the number of which might be affected by any change. Perhaps in reply my hon. Friend would clear up the position, for I am not very clear about it myself. I thought that for the most part it related to endowed schools which were not assisted either by the State or the local authority. In general, I believe it is up to these schools to put their own houses in order. I do not agree for one moment with the points which have been made to day about the future of the education system and the public schools, and I only say now, in order to put it on record, that there seems to be such a misunderstanding both of the functions of public


schools arid of their relationship to the State that it is high time the President of the Board of Education made the position clear to the country. Perhaps we might have a Debate on it. It is not a question, as one hon. Member said, of throwing open the public schools to all children. If I were to continue on that line, I should be trespassing on the Rules of this Debate, but when we do discuss the relationship between the State and the public school's, we must have full notice of what we are discussing. In that', the first person to agree with me will be the Parliamentary Secretary himself.
On the grounds, therefore, that this is a technical Bill, dealing with finance and with nothing more, to enable certain schools to carry on during these difficult days, I support the Bill whole-heartedly. I hope the President will give us an opportunity before long of going into the wider matter very much more fully, and that perhaps he will prepare the ground so that we shall be able to discuss it with as little heat as possible and with a maximum of light.

Mr. Ede: Perhaps it would be as well if I dealt first with one of the points made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), in order that we should have clearly in our minds exactly how many schools— and which schools — are covered by this Bill schools as defined by the Public Schools Acts of 1868 to 1873 are seven in number: Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Westminster, Shrewsbury, Rugby and Charterhouse. These seven schools have been defined in those Acts as public schools. In addition, there are certain schools administered by bodies incorporated by Royal Charter. I believe there are some 24 of those. They form the two groups of schools whose governors will have to make their applications to the Lord President of the Council if they desire to benefit from the terms of this Bill. After that, we have the schools which have an endowment. Their number is very large; it may be somewhere between 300 and 400, and the amount of endowment varies very considerably. I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Chairman of the London County Council, the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), will have had the same experience as I have had administratively. There are some schools whose endowment works out

at about 7d. or 11d. per pupil, to be used towards aw education costing between £30 and £40. They are, nevertheless, endowed schools. There are, of course, others which have exceedingly wealthy endowments, covering a far higher share of the cost of education than that which I have just indicated They are all endowed schools, and, of course, the Board of Education, which acts for them in the position of the Charity Commissioners, has from time to time diverted money in the most extraordinary way and has prevented the clutch of the dead hand destroying the real purpose which animated the minds of the original benefactors. This Bill really does nothing more in regard to these schools than make the power which I have just instanced capable of quick, rapid, and practical application.

Mr. R. Morgan: I think my hon. friend has just said that the Charity Commissioners have already diverted excess funds in the case of endowed schools. Are we to understand that this is going to give some power, over and above what they already possess, to divert endowed school funds?

Mr. Ede: I did think that I was speaking sufficiently' loudly to be" be heard m any part of the House. I endeavoured to make the point quite clear—

Mr. Bevan: You should not give answers like that.

Mr. Ede: The House is very touchy to-day.

Mr. Bevan: For a very good reason.

Mr. Ede: It is a pity that the hon. Member should feel it necessary every time—

Mr. Bevan: Why did the hon. Member say, "I have spoken loudly enough," to an hon. Member who simply asked a question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): Order! These interruptions of the Debate are getting rather disorderly.

Mr. Ede: From time to time the Board of Education, acting as the representative of the Charity Commissioners for the purposes of educational charities, has made considerable diversions in the way in which educational endowments can be applied. There can be few hon. Members with administrative experience who


have not known of cases where the only way to get the money spent is to go to the Board of Education and to ask for a scheme to enable a variation to be made. I have been a trustee of several apprenticeship charities in an area where apprenticeship is dead, and where the money was accumulating. The only purpose for which it was being applied was to pay the clerk to the charity £10 a year for calling us together to pass the annual account, which said that the only purpose for which the money was being used was to pay him his £10 a year. Trustees have gone to the Board from time to time to get the money to spend on technical schools and travelling expenses, and generally for carrying on work which would be in line with the original objects for which the money is intended.

Mr. Bevan: And the wisdom, or other wise, of the decision could be discussed in the House of Commons on a Vote of Supply.

Mr. Ede: Yes.

Mr. Bevan: And it may not be discussed to-day.

Mr. Ede: I am not responsible for that Ruling. But may I point out that any action which the Board takes in this matter can now be discussed in two ways — first, when the Order is presented; and, secondly, when the salary of my right hon. Friend is under discussion; or even whim the miserably inadequate remuneration which I receive is under discussion if it is thought that I have unduly influenced my right hon. Friend into making a wrong decision in the matter. So, as far as effective action is concerned, the House is not at all prejudiced in this matter. I want to make it quite clear that this Bill does not involve the voting of a single penny of public money. The moneys with which we are concerned are the endowments, or the income from the endowments, of the various charities which have established these schools. When my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell asks me for how much may the governors ask, the answer is quite clearly that they cannot ask for more than they have got. It will be for the Board of Education or the Privy Council, as the case may be, to consider, when a certain sum is asked for, whether they shall be allowed to use the whole of the sum for which they are asking.

Mr. Ammon: Will my hon. Friend answer the question that I asked? That was, whether the amount that could be used was the total capital they had in hand, or the capital they wanted to use.

Mr. Ede: I think that it clearly means the amount of the capital they wanted to use. My hon. Friend went on to ask— the point is really connected with this— whether we ought not to be able to get the accounts of these schools. He will see that one of the governing principles of the whole Measure is that set out in Clause 1, Sub-section (1), enabling His Majesty, by Order-in-Council, to
make such provision as appears to Him to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of securing economy or efficiency in the carrying on of the work of the school under war conditions.
In order that the Privy Council or the Board of Education may make an Order embodying that principle, it will be necessary for them to know the financial condition of a school; and I can see no other way of finding out than by examining the accounts.

Mr. Ammon: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I am touchy, but that is not the same thing. What I asked— and I think I was supported by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson)— was that the accounts should be published. These are private businesses; and, therefore, if they are to be allowed to use funds for purposes other than those for which they were intended, we ought at least to know the state of their finances.

Mr. Ede: The demand is limited to the schools which apply for an Order. We cannot do anything, under the Bill, to a school which does not apply for an Order. I think it is quite clear that the Board of Education, or the Privy Council, will have to get such a statement. Then, if the Minister's decision were criticised by Parliament, the Minister would have to defend himself by making a very frank statement on the position of the school as it had been revealed to him. I cannot imagine that he would be able to escape during a Debate without doing that.

Mr. Bevan: It is already provided that when the order is laid before the House, the House can, within 40 days, challenge the order. It is the intention of some


hon. Members, when we come to the Committee stage of this Bill, to move an Amendment to provide that the balance-sheet of the school shall be available, so that the House, and not only the Minister, may have the information.

Mr. Ede: When we come to the Committee stage, if the Amendment is moved, my right hon. Friend will have to deal with any arguments for making it a statutory requirement that the balance-sheet shall be attached.

Mr. Bevan: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that schools will not be so anxious to apply for orders if they have to supply balance-sheets?

Mr. Ede: I have no reason to think that anything fraudulent is going on with regard to these schools.

Mr. Bevan: Oh, no.

Mr. Ede: Nor do I imagine that, if they are hard up, they will be reluctant to disclose the extent of their embarrassment in order to obtain as much assistance as possible. The hon. Member also asked about schools, like Sutton Valence and Emmanuel, which are connected. Quite clearly, in cases like that, the Board will have to take into account the full implications of any application which is made. While there may be some complicated cases, I do not imagine that it will be beyond the wit of man to see that justice is done.
The right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) asked about the position of poor scholars. I am quite sure that whoever has to administer this Bill will always have to take into account very seriously the position of the poor scholar, and see that no one who is en titled to benefit under the original trust is injured unnecessarily by any alteration that is made. But I have a letter here from the Headmaster of Winchester College, who was the chairman of the meeting from which this Bill was originally asked for. In the letter, he says:
I think you can perfectly well assure the President that if the Privy Council and other bodies are instructed by Parliament to make it a condition of their approval that the interests of the poor boys will not be affected in the award of scholarships to the school and from the school to the universities, that condition will at once be accepted and indeed welcomed.

Mr. Lindsay: That means the scholars in the public schools who would otherwise be paying a portion of the fees, and not free places?

Mr. Ede: I have read the letter that I have received from the Headmaster of Winchester, and if any further explanation of his words is required, I shall have to ask him to deal with the point that the hon. Member has raised. There is one particular class of scholar for whom, in the ordinary publicly supported system of education, we make very careful pro vision, and who sometimes in this type of school is prevented from getting the benefit that, I imagine, in justice you would say ought to be allowed to him. In the ordinary secondary school, when we grant a child a special place, we make arrangements whereby, if the parents' circum stances worsen, there may be a remission of fees or the payment of a maintenance grant may be increased. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock will know, even with regard to the fee-paying people, we have in the Board's regulations a suggestion to local education authorities that, where a fee-payer is in a secondary school and the family circumstances afterwards worsen, arrangements should be made to see that, either by the remission of fees or by the payment of a maintenance grant, or possibly both the child's school life should be continued.
There are many schools in which the scholarships are limited to foundation scholars, and owing to the exigencies of the war the number of foundation scholars at the moment is not sufficient to absorb all the income. It seems to me that the governors of such a school would be perfectly entitled to ask that they should be allowed to apply the surplus annual in come for foundation scholars, where they cannot use it for foundation scholars owing to lack of candidates, to assist these children whose parents, owing to the circumstances of the war, may find them selves in worsened financial conditions and unable, otherwise, to continue the child at school. That is one of the forms in which, I imagine, some of these applications will be made, and it seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate way in which to deal with the problem of not merely the poor scholar who has come in as a foundation scholar, but of the scholar whose circumstances have worsened since his admission to the school.

Mr. Creech Jones: Does not that mean the subsidising of the education of the well-to-do and of the rich?

Mr. Ede: In the first place, the money is the property of the school, and secondly, on my hypothesis, the person is no longer well-to-do or sufficiently well-to-do, and I cannot see why, if the son of a labourer at a secondary school is entitled to an additional maintenance allowance if his parents' circumstances are worsened, the child of the person in some other walk of life, if his family circum stances are worsened, should not get some benefit from the foundation if no-one is going to be injured by it.

Mr. Creech Jones: It is perpetuating snobbery.

Mr. Ede: When we get a remark like that, it is really only saying, "We have got the public schools where we want them, and we intend to kill them off one by one."

Mr. Bevan: You have the House of Commons where you want it at the moment.

Mr. Ede: I want now to come to the speech of my hon. Friend, if I may so call him, the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan).We had from him a speech in which, it appeared to me, he used two arguments which were mutually destructive. He argued, first, that in no circumstances must we agree to this diversion of the original purposes of the trust. I am bound to say that it seems to me to be an extraordinary view for a Socialist to take.

Mr. Bevan: I did not advance any such proposition. What I really said— I am within the recollection of the House— and I was establishing the importance of the Bill, was that it was proposed to divert money intended for one person to another person, and that if such a diversion was to be asked for, these purposes should be justified. I did not argue against the diversion of the trust.

Mr. Ede: I am also within the recollection of the House, and I do not think that I have unfairly paraphrased the statement of the hon. Member.

Mr. Cove: Paraphrases are always un fair.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend went on to argue that all these schools should be closed, that the entire idea of the orginal testator should be completely destroyed and that there should be a diversion of the school funds. That has never been contemplated. [Interruption.] I have listened to the hon. Member with what, I hope, will be regarded by the House as exemplary patience, in view of the provocativeness of his remarks, and I think I am entitled to ask for reciprocal courtesy. He suggested that these children in the so-called public schools— that is, the 183 schools whose names are put down in Paton's List of Schools; I do not think it will be disputed that that is a fair definition of what the ordinary person regards as the public school— should be sent, so I gather, to the various county and municipal secondary schools of the country.

Mr. Cove: Some of them need to go to the infant schools.

Mr. Ede: Really, the hon. Member for Aberavon and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley [Mr. Key] sitting behind him, and I, have had enough rows with headmistresses of infant schools about the age at which they transfer their children without having to send boys of 17 and 18 there. There are 30,000 of these children at the moment. Out side the evacuation areas (and I do not suppose, when we are trying to persuade other people to send their children away from the evacuation area secondary schools, it will be suggested that we ought to send these children into the danger zone) secondary schools are exceedingly tight for accommodation, and I doubt whether in the whole country we should be able to find even accommodation for the first thousand of that 30,000.

Mr. Bevan: Would the hon. Gentlemansay— and this is very important, because these figures have been used over and over again— from what kind of secondary school he is taking his figures? It is usually the case that the lower forms are full and the higher forms are half empty.

Mr. Ede: At the moment that would not be true. During the last four months I have been visiting education authorities in every part of the country. I have not been through the hon. Member's county, but I spent a considerable time in the


neighbouring county of Carmarthenshire going through their secondary schools. When you take resident children and evacuated children, those schools are quite full, and we see children now going to places like Ammanford, which the hon. Member will know. We are teaching children in a mining college and other buildings which we have taken because we have not room in ordinary secondary schools, although there is a large secondary school in that particular town. That is generally true of neutral and reception areas. Therefore, on practical grounds it would not be possible at the moment to absorb these children into a State system of education and give them the kind of education to which they would be entitled.
The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) asked me about endowed schools. Suggestions were made that they availed themselves of a similar kind of arrangement during the last war, and shortly afterwards no longer took their money from public funds but reverted to the closed system. There is only one school, so far as we can trace, that did that. [An Hon. Member: "Dulwich."] Yes, it was Dulwich, of which my right hon. Friend is a governor, and I only hope that when they come this time he will endeavour to see that their relation ships are rather longer in their term than they were on the last occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, expressed surprise that a Government with Labour Members should be bringing forward a Measure for what he described as the plutocratic schools. These schools vary very considerably in the fees they charge and in the class of persons who send their children to them. Paton's List, for instance, ranges from Eton, with its fees of £290, to Haverford-west Grammar School, with its fees of £6 a year. (An hon. Member: "Is that a public school?") It is a public school according to the agreed definition.

Mr. Bevan: Is it a public school according to the generally agreed definition which my hon. Friend used?

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Member had been following me, he would have recalled that I said I did not think we could get a more agreed list than Paton's List, which is the

list from the Headmasters' Conference. Hon. Members opposite nodded in. assent when I said this, and I did not think the point was disputed. With regard to this question, there are raised by this Bill issues which give rise, owing to the history of education in this country, to deep and passionate feeling. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock spared me the necessity of quoting, as I intended to do, from the last speech I made on this subject when I was speaking on behalf of hon. Members opposite. From that speech I could not depart in the least. It is quite clear that in any reconsideration of the educational system which was due before the war, and which has become increasingly necessary as a result of the war, the position of the so-called public schools must engage the attention of my right hon. Friend and this House.
I hope that these ancient endowments will in some cases be restored to their original purpose. I may not be speaking for everybody on this side of the House when I say this, but I am quite sure there has been, with regard' to some of these endowments, a substantial diversion in spirit during the course of the centuries. I am also well aware that if we take the residential public schools, we might find it difficult at the moment, if we tried to throw them open, to get a sufficient number of genuine elementary school entrants to sit for an extensive number of free places. My experience as an administrator, which I have no doubt is shared by others, is this, that working-class parents are very reluctant to part with their child to a residential school. I can understand the reasons for it, and I think some people who, on the public schools side, think they will get a solution of this problem merely by saying that they will throw open their doors to admit a number of boys and girls from elementary schools, will be rather disappointed as a result. What would probably happen would be that some impecunious professional man would see a cheaper way into a public school by sending his child to an elementary school for a short period in the hope that he would thus gain entry to a public school.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Gentleman acquainted with Rankin College, in Gloucestershire, which was founded for children from elementary schools and is successfully run on public school lines?

Mr. Ede: You will get a limited number, but some people are talking about this matter as if there will be an overwhelming demand on the part of genuine elemetary school children for admission to public schools. At the moment I do not think that would materialise if the offer was made.

Mr. Wedgwood: You can get a much better education at an elementary school.

Mr. Ede: I will not dispute that, but so many people have interrupted me to-day that I hope such a giant in that form of activity as the right hon. Gentleman is not about to take up the running now that others are beginning to tire. May I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister returned to his old school just before Christmas? I heard him described to-day by one hon. Member as a distinguished scholar of his school, but the autobiography by the right hon. Gentle man which I read makes me think he would not use that exact phrase with regard to his connection with his school at the time he was a pupil. At the school my right hon. Friend dealt with the point that in this war, whatever might be said about the last, there has been no distinction of class in the way in which the dangers of the battlefield and the nightly dangers of the bombed cities have been met by people, irrespective of the places at which they had been educated. They had proved to possess the spirit necessary for victory, and in his closing words my right hon. Friend said:
When this war is won, as it surely will be. it must be one of our aims to work for the establishment of a state of society where the advantages and privileges which hitherto have been enjoyed only by the few shall be far move widely shared by the men and youth of the nation as a whole.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education is giving the most earnest attention to the way in which the educational system of this country should be organised. He has made speeches in various parts of the country in which he has pointed out the dangers and difficulties that confront us now by the social stratification of our educational system. To such limited extent as I have been able to do so, I have endeavoured to support him in that view with regard to the problem of the future. Into that system we shall have to weave these ancient endowments and the schools that

have been established as a result of them. If we destroy them now, we may have. the money perhaps at the end of the war from the endowments, but we shall have lost the institution, and, I am not ashamed to say, the tradition that goes with it. I am not ashamed of the tradition of the public elementary school from which I came. It is a different tradition from this with which we are dealing, but neither of the traditions, taken by itself, represents the whole sum of English history and the English spirit. The pity is— and it has been exemplified in the House in this Debate— the line of cleavage that past injustice has drawn between those two traditions. I believe we have got to act in the spirit of the Prime Minister, and each of us has to share the tradition and privilege of the other, and the way of uniting these traditions and privileges has to be worked out in the very near future.
I am bound to say that I do not think a Royal Commission would be the best way of dealing with this matter. I hope it will be possible to produce for the discussion of this House and the country a scheme of education that will enable the best to be made of all the very different kinds of schools and traditions that we have in this country. All that this Bill enables us to do is to meet small and immediate practical difficulties in an expeditious way, and it enables certain institutions that otherwise might not be able to continue to carry on. The Bill is limited to the duration of the war, it is limited in its scope, and I sincerely ask the House, in view of the fact that we have the whole matter of our educational system continually before us, to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that this part of the system— which cannot, when it has a deficit, merely send a bill to the county hall and say "We anticipated a deficit of £4,500 this year but we regret to find"— I have sometimes thought they rejoiced to find— "there will be a deficit of £6,500," and get a cheque from the county treasurer— shall be able in these very difficult times, without in jury to the spirit of the original endowment, to carry on and be in a position, when the appropriate time comes, to make its full contribution to the post war effort in education in which, I am quite sure, it can play a very helpful part if we stand by them to-day.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division No. 15.]
AYES.



Adams, Captain S. V. T. (Leeds W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Ridley, G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h. Univ.)
Hannah, l. C.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Silkin, L.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Harvey, T. E.
Spens, W. P.


Blair, Sir R.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Boles, Lt.-Cot. D. C.
Holdsworth, H.
Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Broad, F. A.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Sutcliffe, H.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jewson, P. W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k Newington)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Charleton, H. C.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lindsay, K. M.
Tomlinson, J.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lipson, D. L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Martin, J. H.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Denville, Alfred
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Ede, J. C.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Westwood, J.


Edmonson, Major Sir J.
Paling, W.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Frankel, D.
Peake, O.
White, sir Dymoke (Birkenhead, E)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E.T.P


Garro Jones, G. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Price, M. P.
Windsor, W.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pym, L. R.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W. J.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Rankin, S. R.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Mr. Boulton and Mr. Whiteley.




NOES.


Bellenger, F. J.
Horabin, T. L.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Bevan, A.
Key, C. W.



Groves, T. E.
Sloan, A.
TELLERS FOR'THE NOES.—


Hardie, Agnes
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Mr. Cove and Mr. Parker.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.— [Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — PERSONAL INJURIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1939.

Mrs. Tate: I beg to move,
That the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1941, dated 10th April, 1941, made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 24th April, be anulled.
I ask the House to appreciate that in praying that these Regulations shall be annulled, I do so, not simply as a feminist, but because I believe that they are fundamentally wrong and fundamentally unjust. If a grave injustice is allowed to continue in the body politic, you are doing something detrimental to the moral health of a nation. These Regulations have had a somewhat checkered career. When the Minister first brought them before the House on 2nd September, 1939, he made this statement:

The House divided: Ayes, 84; Noes, 9.

"Pensions will be awarded on Service lines, that is to say in accordance with the medically certified degree of physical disablement. Again, wages or earnings will not ordinarily enter into consideration. …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd September, 1939; col. 243, Vol. 351]

Having regard to those words, we can see that these pensions have nothing whatever to do with and cannot be based on the wage earnings of a person who is physically injured. The State undertook to give some remuneration to those who, because of the war, were physically disabled. The Minister stated:
the Government assume a national responsibility for all war injuries, instead of leaving it to employès and others to take their chance at law."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd September, 1939; col. 244, Vol. 351.]

Having regard to that, we could, I think have expected some degree of equality, and we could have expected that the awards would have relation, not to sex, but simply to injury. These Regulations were withdrawn. The hon. Lady the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson), and the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill), drew attention to the very great injustice of the first Regulations which were laid, and they


successfully prayed against them. It is interesting to look at these first Regulations and to note that under them a single man, if he was injured, would receive compensation at the rate of 20s. a week, and a woman would receive 18s. a week. When the second group of Regulations was brought in we found that the figures had been changed, and that a single man, injured in his home, would no longer be paid 20s. a week, but 35s. There is absolutely no doubt that the reason for that very remarkable rise in compensation to the single man was the result of representations made by the trade unions.

I ask this House to do justice to women who are not as ably represented as men by the trade unions. There is absolutely no doubt or question about that. There are not yet sufficiently large numbers of women inside the trade unions to enable women to make as great a fight for them selves as can the men. Many of us regret bitterly the fight people had to make through their trade unions in the past. We would have wished that better conditions could have been obtained without having to fight for them. I am asking this House to give justice to these women and to fight for them, because they are not yet able to attain this justice by fighting through their trade unions. The present rate of compensation for a woman over 18 years of age, who is injured in an armament factory or in the course of war work, is 28s. a week for the period of her disablement. If she is permanently disabled to the extent of 100 per cent, she will receive a pension for life of 24s. 2d. The amount payable, in similar circum stances, for a man is 35s. for the period of disablement, and 34s. 2d. if he is 100 per cent, permanently disabled. Hon. Members may say that that must be left as it is because a woman normally earns less than a man. But I have quoted the Minister's statement in which he said that this compensation should not be related to earnings.

I want the House to consider the case of a young widow with three children who has no pension. She may have been the wife of a small shopkeeper. This widow is called up and goes into an armament factory, and in an air raid suffers a 100 per cent, disablement. She will draw a pension at the rate of 24s. 2d., with 5s. each for the first two children, and 4s. for the third. Therefore her total income will be 38s. 2d. A man who is

in exactly the same position, instead of drawing a pension at the rate of 24s. a week for life, will draw 34s. Is it not obvious that every single member of the household will suffer and that the children of the widow must of necessity be less well fed and less well clad than the children of the man? I ask the House whether there is any conceivable ground upon which you can justify that differentiation. Is there a single Member who can truthfully say that he would like a differentiation of 10s. on the very tiny income made between the household of the woman with three children and the household of the man with three children? Of course, he would not. He would do everything he could, if he examined the case on its merits, to see that no such injustice should be allowed.

I think the House will also appreciate the position of the unmarried woman under 18. If she is injured for life at 100 per cent, disablement, she will get a pension of 14s. 2d. If she is 50 per cent, disabled, she gets half that money. A man under 18 in like circumstances gets 17s. 6d. for 100 per cent, disablement or half that amount for 50 per cent, disablement. A man may lose, for instance, a leg. You might call that perhaps a 50 per cent, disablement. He can marry and have children and have a home. The disablement is not going to wreck his life. But if a young woman loses a leg, it is idle to pretend that she will have as full and complete a life in normal circumstances as she would have had if she had two legs. These injuries which occur to women are likely to have a far more wrecking effect on their lives than a comparable injury will have to a man. It is not the wish of the House, where a differentiation exists which we cannot help, that we should add to it a differentiation in the rate of compensation. Many people insure their lives against ill ness and accident, and there is not a single case in which the compensation paid in relates to their sex. It is always related to the degree of injury. These compensations are different from any that have ever been paid before. The Government have taken the whole responsibility. With the wish and the will of the whole country behind them, they have involved the country in war, and they intended to see to it that citizens who are injured should receive some degree of compensation, and I ask, and I think I ask in


fairness, that the degree of compensation shall be equal as between women and men and that it shall be related to the injury and not to the sex.

I know the Minister will tell me that National Health Insurance has always been made a differentiation between men and women, but I ask that, if there have been injustices in the past, at least he should not perpetuate them. You are asking very great sacrifices from the whole population in this war, and I think no sacrifice is too great as long as we fight the war to its conclusion. I am willing to face death, injury, starvation or any form of suffering, because I believe this is a righteous war and because I wish to see it fought to its conclusion, but I ask that, if it is a righteous war, the nation should treat its citizens righteously and that these injustices should not be allowed to continued I know that the Minister of Pensions has a tremendously heavy burden to bear, and I know how heavily burdened the Exchequer is, but if the financial burden is too great, if it is impossible for the nation to bear, let us all go to a lower level together. Let the compensation rates all round be reduced. If we have to face poverty, let us face it, but do not let us create injustice, because, if we are fighting for freedom, if we are fighting for the things which make life worth living, how piteous it is that we should allow such great, such unjust proposals as these to go forward. I intend to divide the House on this issue. I am not speaking as a feminist. I am speaking simply as one who wishes to see a real measure of justice and who believes that these Regulations are absolutely in defensible on any ground save custom, and it is a custom which needs breaking down.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to second the Motion.
I believe that during the last eight months this is the third time that I have risen to ask the Minister of Pensions to reconsider his decision. As the months go on, far from thinking that the matter is not of great moment, I feel that the injustice seems greater and that the case for revision grows stronger. The reason for that is this: during the last few months the Government have brought ever-increasing pressure on women. The industries of the country are being con-

centrated, so that soon everyone who works will feel that he is doing some essential work and every woman worker in the country, far from being engaged in a luxury industry, will in fact be engaged in some work absolutely essential to the prosecution of the war. Not only that, but we had on 19th April some thing that was historic. For the first time in the history of the country women were registered for war work, and there is now the threat that women will be compulsorily removed to do essential war work. A girl, perhaps of 20, living in a safe reception area, may be removed to Coventry, Birmingham or Manchester to do war work. We are all doing every thing in our power to make women war-work conscious. We tell them that hostels are to be provided for them and that it is their duty to do this work, but I have not noticed that it has been made clear to them yet that, having arrived in a vulnerable area, having worked on the target, in the event of their being bombed on the target they will be dealt with adequately and compensated equitably. The woman— perhaps she is a woman of 40— having left her safe place and gone to a vulnerable area, will find to her surprise, if she has a 100 per cent, disability, that she is not to be treated equally with a man of 21 who has been working by her side.
Surely this case is unanswerable. There is no need for me to stress that the women of this country are unafraid and are willing to work side by side with men. There is no hysteria, and there is no fear. I have not heard of one case of hysteria in this war. Women are injured and disfigured every day, and the Press tell us what wonderful heroines they are. Yet when the Government are asked what their attitude is towards these women, they say, "Well, women have always been regarded as cheap labour, and, therefore, when it comes to compensation they must not be compensated equally with men." That is our case to-day, and I ask the House to give it their earnest consideration. I have been playing a part as much as I can in encouraging women to do their work in this war. I have found that the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Information are all taking part in this recruiting drive. I have almost felt that we are playing a monstrous confidence


trick on the women of this country, for the Ministry of Pensions does not take part in this drive and tell women what their part is. We are shepherding women into industry and telling them that it is their bounden duty to go. The Minister of Health is saying, "We will supply hostels as billets", and the Ministry of Information is going to the women and girls and using its propaganda machine. The women, however, do not know until they get there that the Ministry of Pensions will not do its duty by them and that if a single woman is injured, she will get 28s., but that a single man will get 35s.
I am surprised that the Minister of Pensions shows so little concern in the matter. He knows that I am voicing the feelings of the women of the country. He: was present at a deputation of 40 women representing 2,500,000 organised women. He knows exactly what their sentiments are. I cannot understand why, in the atmosphere in which we are living, when none of us knows just what the next 48 hours will hold for us, he is not more receptive of this appeal. I feel that it is grossly unfair to send some of these girls to Birmingham, Manchester and. Coventry unless it is proposed to compensate them adequately in the event of in jury. I suggest that the Government are exploiting their patriotism. Perhaps the Minister of Pensions might go to the radio one night and explain the exact position to the women.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I have done that already.

Dr. Summerskill: I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman tell the women that they are not to be treated equally with the men or explain to women of 40 that in the event of their being injured the)' will get only 28s., whereas boys of 19 and 20 will get 35s. If he had done that, it would have been made clear to these women that their end after the war would, be to live a miserable existence in a single room, probably subsidised by the public assistance authority. That is the horrible picture which is before us, and that is why we are coming to the Minister of Pensions to ask him not to harden his heart but to give a hearing to the women. My hon. Friend has said that a woman is handicapped with regard to marriage. There is a curious idea which obtains

among men that a woman really need not be treated so well economically as a man because there is some man some where who will come along and care for her and cherish her.

Mr. Bellenger: I hope so.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that there are 2,000,000 of what are called "superfluous women"— an appalling expression coined by men— and I tremble to think how many more there will be after the war— I cannot understand how, unless we have polygamy, men will come for ward and care for and cherish these extra 2,000,000 women. It is a fact that even in war-time the standards of the marriage market are the same as they always have been. Physical disability is a woman's greatest handicap, and it is idle to pretend that if a woman is injured at her work, she will easily find a man somewhere to love and cherish her.
I want to deal with the case of the Minister of Pensions. This is his case summed up in a nutshell: He has often said in the House that he has a soft heart, and last time he even said that he loved women. These sentiments are very nice, and we appreciate them, but we want something more concrete. [Laughter.] I did not say that I wanted anything more concrete, far from it. The women of this country are not fed, housed and cared for just because the Minister of Pensions holds these delightful sentiments. I know that he is very kindly disposed, but if he wants to do justice, it is no good telling the women that they are heroines, that he is proud of them and that he is very sorry for them if they are injured. Let him translate those words into action and say, "The right way to deal with you is to give you sufficient in order that you may be cared for during your time of need."He does not say that, how ever. What he says is that he is advised that according to the Workmen's Compensation Acts these women will be given their just due if they are given 28s. a week and men are given 35s.
My answer is that you cannot relate the situation to-day to the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Think, for instance, of Plymouth during the last 10 days. Think of a single woman of 40 feeling that she is doing her job by working in some factory in Plymouth which is a veritable target to the enemy. How can the Minister


say that we must relate the Workmen's Compensation Acts to her particular need? I say, and my friends feel, that the position of that woman can only be related to the position of the soldier or seaman in Plymouth who is injured when doing his duty in some service which is essential 10 the prosecution of the war. Therefore, I ask the Minister, even at this late hour, to be strong, to have courage. It takes a lot of courage to change one's mind, and the Minister of Pensions has refused this request on so many occasions during the last eight months that I know it is asking a lot to ask him to change his mind at the last moment; but I do ask him to think again. The women of this country are willing to give everything— their limbs, their lives, everything— to prose cute the war. Therefore I ask him to treat them like soldiers, honestly, equitably, in order that they may be proud of their country after the war.

Miss Ward: I intervene only briefly to support the plea put forward by my two hon. Friends for the annulment of these Regulations, and after their very able speeches I need deal with only one aspect of the matter. Talking over with many of my colleagues the decision to put down this Prayer, I have met the suggestion that the present was not the moment to raise this issue in the House of Commons, and the Parliamentary Whips, with all their charm, seemed to be more than surprised that we had taken the decision to Divide the House. The reason why we. have put down the Prayer and are going to Divide the House must be emphasised. The women of this country are for the most part unorganised. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) referred to the alteration in the rates of compensation as between single men and married men when the new Regulations were brought before the House, and to the fact that undoubtedly that concession had been granted as a result of trade-union representations. "We are not quarrelling with that, but unfortunately, as far as I under stand it, the trade unions did not include women in their representations. We have not the power in the trade-union world, or in the industrial world, or by virtue of the number of women in this House, to go to the Minister and to say,"This is what we demand." I know enough about industrial practice and about representa-

tions made behind the scenes to the Government to appreciate that if you have a strong enough body of opinion behind you, you can achieve results.
I have always regretted, and shall continue to regret, as long as I have the honour to be in this House, that weight of opinion can stimulate the Government to action where a good cause fails to make any impression. Therefore, the women Members of this House, of all parties, came to the conclusion that the only way to direct the attention of the Government to their case was to follow constitutional procedure and put down a Prayer to annul the Regulations. As this war goes on, as it will, until victory, as the intensity of the war grows, and as the women of the country come to realise that they are not being treated in their war effort on terms of equality with men, I am certain that there will come a time when the public pressure will be so great that there will be an alteration in the Regulations, in the same way as the original Regulations were withdrawn be cause of representations made by those women who were not gainfully employed by local authorities and of representations by the trade unions. If the right decision was taken in the first in stance, I want the Minister to state quite categorically, and not with any charming wrapping of Parliamentary words, what influenced him and the Treasury to alter the decision.. We had to put down this Prayer to-day because there is no other way of directing the Government's attention to what we regard as a grave injustice. If we had not done so, we should not have been doing justice to that body of opinion in the country which is not represented by those powerful influences which have had such an effect on my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) referred to the powers now taken by the Ministry of Labour to direct women, and also to impose upon women the provisions of the Essential Works Order. Those two decisions of the Government, with which again we are not quarrelling and in which we are perfectly willing, delighted and proud to play our part, prevent women, in the national interest, from leaving their work. Surely we are not asking too much when we wish for the same consideration as single men with the same


responsibilities and running undoubtedly the same dangers.
When I look at Government policy— I am not accusing the Minister of Pensions of this— its whole tendency appears to make things as easy as possible before injury takes place. After it is over— well, if the Government are fortunate enough to be financially sound enough to pay the costs of the wreckage, the injured people will obtain their share. There is hardly any need for me to cite the case of the nurses. I shall not develop this part of my argument, Mr. Speaker, because I know that you would rule me out of Order, but, until the nurses were needed the Government were not moved in regard to their conditions. The Government looked round and found there was a shortage of nurses. They said, "Why are women not being attracted into the nursing service?" They realised that the nurses' conditions were wrong, and they set about improving them. I regret that action was not taken about it before.
We may not win to-day. We realise that we are taking a grave action, but we are proud to take it. This is a free democracy. This is a country of liberty. Parliament still functions in this country. We are trying to protect the interests of those who cannot protect themselves, and if the Government will not do it, I hope that the women Members have the courage — as they have— to place on record at any rate their disapproval. I can only hope, if my right lion. Friend is successful to day, that his Regulations will share the fate of the other Regulations which had to be withdrawn owing to public pressure. I support the annulment of the Regulations.

Miss Lloyd George: I would intervene for a moment or two to support the plea which has been so strongly put by the hon. Member who spoke before me that the Order now before the House should be annulled. I do not believe that it can be justified upon any considerations of justice or equity, and I hope very much that the Minister will reconsider his decision; if he cannot reconsider it to-day, perhaps he will be able to tell us "that he is prepared to consider what we have said. I hope that the House will do justice in this matter to the women of the country.
May I for one moment discuss the case of women who are gainfully employed? A single woman and a single man may work in the same factory on the same kind of machine. Both may be injured in an air raid, and one gets 35s. and the other only 28s. by way of compensation. I cannot see any justification for that difference, and I hope the Minister will explain how he is able to justify it. I would cite the case of fire watching. Men and women take the same risk in that matter and render the same service to the community. Why, if one is injured, should she get less than the man who is doing the same job as she is? The Minister of Pensions has told us that he has based all these Regulations upon the Workmen's Compensation Acts. He has certainly not based the Regulations on the Common Law of England, which takes no account of sex in the matter of damages. Can the Minister really bear out his contention? I think he cannot. The Workmen's Compensation Acts base compensation upon wages. They provide that compensation shall be payable on the average of the wage, or 30s. If you take the rate of compensation under these Regulations, where a single man and a single woman are working in a munition factory on the same job and receiving the same rate, the man will receive 35s.'and the woman 28s. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts they would receive the same compensation. I should be very glad if the Minister would tell me where my calculation is wrong. So far as I can work it out, it shows that he does not base the new Regulations upon workmen's compensation in this respect.
Let us take the case of old age pensioners. I believe that under workmen's compensation they get the same rate. If you take the maximum rate, under work men's compensation, that is the same for men and for women. Therefore I fail to understand the Minister's position, and I shall be glad if he will explain it to the House. It is on that ground that he puts the whole of his argument against altering these scales. I should be very glad if he would explain how he can base his calculations on the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Another point is that, when the scales of compensation were laid down under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, conditions were very different regarding the employment of women. In the main, the high rates of accident and injury took


place in the heavy industries, such as mining, engineering, shipbuilding and other industries in which, up till to-day, women have taken no very great part. Circumstances are completely changed. Women are going not only into the engineering industry in great numbers, but, in ever-increasing numbers, into munition factories, which, in addition to being dangerous occupations, are potential targets.. Therefore all these conditions ought to be revised.
The fact is that the calculations upon which the Minister has based these Regulations are completely out of date and bear no relation whatsoever to the times or to the problems of the times. As other hon. Ladies have said this afternoon, the Government are asking women to take their share of the burden of the work, and this the women are prepared to do. The country expects them to take the same burden of risk as their fellow-citizens, and no one can deny that women have been prepared to do that. They have earned high praise.

Dr. Summerskill: So long as it did not cost too much.

Miss Lloyd George: Let the Minister meet the readiness of women in a generous spirit and not in a mean and calculating spirit. The Government are asking the women to come in and to help. I say to the Government, "Give them measure for measure and treat them generously, as they are prepared to treat you."

Mr. Craik Henderson: We have listened to some eloquent speeches. I wonder whether the women of the country will appreciate the efforts that are being made on their behalf by the women Members of the House. I suggest that there is another point of view which they would like to have considered. If there is to be equity of sacrifice, it means that when a. man is killed' the widow is not to get anything. If you were to put that proposition before the women of the country and ask them whether they would choose to have a lower rate of compensation when they themselves were injured or, in the event of the bread winner being injured, they should cease to get a pension which they are to get under the scheme, I think there is no doubt which alternative the women of the country would choose.

Mrs. Tate: Is my hon. Friend aware that we happen to represent the view of every women's organisation and that one of the complaints that we are making under these Regulations is that, in the case of a man being killed, his dependants are provided for, while, in the case of a woman being injured, where she is sup porting dependants, they are not provided for? That is exactly one of our com plaints. My hon. Friend is strangely badly briefed. He may represent that view, but he does not represent either the knowledge or the opinions of the women of this country.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I have been put completely in my place, but my head is still quite unbowed. I would point out that the men may not represent the women's organisations, but they represent the majority of the women of this country.

Mrs. Tate: Not women's opinions.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I was not dealing with the question of dependants, but with the very definite point that the gainer in the event of the death of a husband or wife under this scheme is the woman and not the man. If the woman is killed, the man gets no compensation, but if the man is killed, the woman gets a pension on a very generous scale. If it was worked out on an actuarial basis, it would be found that women are the gainers under the scheme. I merely raise this question as to whether in fact, if it was put to the women of this country with all the arguments on one side and on the other, they would not say that they would rather have the scheme than what has been suggested by hon. Ladies in this House.

Dr. Summerskill: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is inequitable that the dependants of a woman who is working because her husband is incapacitated— and that is not unusual; many women have to help support their husbands— should receive no compensation? That is the whole point.

Mr. Craik Henderson: May I point out to the hon. Lady that I was not referring to the question of dependants, but to that of a pension. A pension is paid to the woman when a man is killed, but if the woman is killed, no pension goes to the man.

Dr. Summerskill: That is what we complain of.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I cannot under stand it.

Mrs. Hardie: This seems to me to be a question of such an elementary piece of justice that it should not need much arguing. The day has gone past when women are sheltered and provided for by men, at any rate as far as the class to which I belong is concerned. The working-class home is a partnership, where the woman, in addition to being the man's wife, has certain duties to perform. The unfortunate thing is that there are so many parasitical women in the country that a good many men are led to think that all women are in that position and will be looked after by a man. It is all very well to be sentimental and jolly about it, and say that men love women and that kind of thing. We know they do, but it is not that which we are asking for; we are asking for justice. It will be noticed that most of the arguments have not been put forward for the married women, although we believe that they also have a grievance; what we are asking is mainly for the single woman who supports herself. I am not one of the people who object to a man receiving 35s. a week. As a matter of fact, I do not think the men receive enough. They would be quite entitled, through their organisations, to force a higher scale than 35s. a week when they are disabled, and certainly a much better scale when they are permanently disabled.
What we do say, however, is that the woman who takes up the same duties as a man should be in the same position as the. man. This is a different war from any other. I can remember the day when women were told that one of the reasons they could not have the vote was that they could not go out and fight. That was always the final argument. In this particular war the women and children are in the front line. I believe there have been more civilians killed than soldiers so far. I do not want the soldiers to be killed— far from it— but a good proportion of our women are taking up most dangerous occupations, and even the occupations now supposed to be suitable for women are very dangerous. Take the case of nurses. The hospitals are

bombed. What are the nurses doing? Not thinking about their own safety, but carrying men out on stretchers, and protecting them, and it is no use telling me that a woman who has taken on the duty of looking after helpless patients at the. risk of her life is to get compensation on a lower scale if she is injured than a man who may be blown up while playing darts in a public house. Do not think I am suggesting that all men go to the pub? while all women are saints. The point is that these comparisons are made, and there is no sense of justice in this scheme whatever. I cannot understand the Minister of Pensions having made such a scheme, especially with the backing of Under-Secretaries who are good Socialists, because one thing that Socialists have ever stood for has been equality.
I do not think I need labour the point any further. I would simply urge that the Minister should not worry too much about not being able to pay for it. As a matter of fact we. have got tangled up with a financial system that is all wrong. At the end of the war, if we have the land and the capable workers we have, we can produce all the work that is needed. It is a myth to say that we cannot pay for things; we can provide for all who have suffered in the war. I urge the Minister of Pensions to take a broader view, and not to think that every woman has somebody to look after her. There are thousands of women living in lodgings who have themselves to support. Besides, you very often find that it is the unmarried woman who is left to support her parents. The men get married, and it is the older single women who look after the old folks at home. Do not, therefore, take the view that a woman is a sort of liability, and that if she is hurt, it does not matter much. These women are in the same position as the men, and I hope the Minister will take account of that.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I intervene only to say one thing to the Minister, and in doing so I ought to say that I am speaking entirely for myself and not for anyone else in this House. I hope the Government will not put the House and the country into the position of creating a division between the sexes. When we were fighting the battle to give women the vote more than


20 years ago, it was often said that in giving the vote to women we should create a sex war. We have had 20 years of women's enfranchisement, of women being potential Members of this House, and I do not think there has ever been a question on which the men have been on one side of the Division Lobby and the women on the other. It would be a most disastrous thing if, after these 20 years, and in the middle of a war when we are all standing together and fighting in a common cause— and when, as the hon. Lady who has just spoken said, the women are in the danger line— this House were to divide on sex lines and the country thereby also be led to divide on sex lines. I beseech the Government, if they cannot give way to-day, to do some thing to prevent this division. I have said to the women Members who are taking part in this Debate that I hoped they would not press the Motion to a Division; but they have decided to do so. Now I make my appeal to the Government. I do not want to see this House divided on sex lines, and the country divided on sex lines. I hope that the Government, even at this twelfth hour, instead of standing absolutely immovable, will take some step by which this matter can be postponed and both sides meet in honourable conclave, and come to some understanding which will prevent this House and this country from feeing divided on sex lines.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I would like to support the point of view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). During the last 18 or 19 months I have had continued experience of the contribution that the women of this country are making in the production of munitions of war. Their efforts stand beyond all praise. It would be deplorable if, in this House, we introduced a sex division in relation to compensation for injuries. There is nothing more heartening, more stimulating and more encouraging, In these dangerous days, than the contribution which women are making to the prosecution of this war. I have associations with a series of enterprises the fundamental purpose of which is to assist in war preparation. We have had to introduce women workers into our various processes of industry, and I want to bear testimony to the response made

by the young women of this country. If this Motion is put to a vote, I will support the contention of the women Members, because I do not think we should have sex differentiation' in these times.
I have had to appeal in the works with which I am associated, in the Midlands, in Sheffield and elsewhere, to masses of people to put forth their supreme effort; and the response has always been led by our women workers. In our precision work, in our industries where skill has to be developed in the shortest period of time, the work done by the young women who have been brought into our factories has been of exceptional quality, and has commanded the respect of those of us who have been engaged in engineering processes for many years. It would be a great pity if, in face of the great difficulties surrounding us, we were to put women workers into one category and men workers into another. I know the sympathies of my right hon. Friend the Minister and his kindly feeling that we ought to give some recognition of the work that women are doing. We ought not to let it go out to the country that we put a 35s. price on a man, and a 28s. price on a woman. If a woman is doing the same work, with the same energy and spirit of sacrifice, as a man, why should there be such differentiation? If it goes to a Division I shall support the Prayer.

Mr. Isaacs: I also wish to support the plea which has been made on behalf of women workers. I will not develop that point to any extent, because there is another aspect of the question which I wish to raise, but I will only say that many of these single women workers are not young women; they are women who have reached middle age or have, perhaps, advanced beyond middle age, living entirely on their own resources. The difference between 28s. and 35s. a week means a great deal to them. They have to pay exactly the same for their milk, for their butter, for their bread, and even for their cigarettes. There is another aspect of the scheme, however, to which I would draw attention. That is the position of men who are compelled to go on working even after the danger signal.
I am referring to such classes as rail-waymen, transport workers, and men in the electric light stations. If this rate of compensation is to be paid to those who


can, and do, take shelter, something additional should be paid to those who are compelled to work through the alerts. That principle has been recognised in one of the essential industries. In the news paper industry, the men have been asked by their employers to carry on after the alert, in order that the public may have its newspapers. The employers recognise that the men should get something more; and, both in London and in the provinces, the proprietors have created a scheme for such additional compensation. Men who are injured while working should get full wages, as against the rate of compensation paid to those who are injured while not working.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I want to introduce a point which has not been raised hitherto. I think none of us in any way disagrees with what has been said about the magnificent work which has been done by the women. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) has been rather hypnotised by the fear of offending them by mentioning any other point of view.

Sir P. Hannon: To say that I would be hypnotised, is a most extravagant assertion on the part of my hon. Friend.

Sir F. Fremantle: It is very astonishing that the hon. Ladies who have put forward this case have not dealt with the principle which, surely, is at the root of the whole matter, namely, the fact that men have hitherto been given the responsibility for looking after the family. It is quite true that there are many anomalies. For in stance, there are the unmarried men and the widows and so on, to whom this principle does not apply. But this is the principle underlying many matters which come before Parliament— whether men are to continue to be responsible for their families. That is mainly responsible for the difference in remuneration for male and female labour.

Mr. Lipson: Does that explain why an unmarried man is given so much more than a woman?=

Sir F. Fremantle: No, it does not ex plain that. That is one of the exceptions. But when we are dealing with questions of statesmanship and law we have to go to the root of the question. If we are to give an equal return to the men and to

the women, that will do away with the principle that men are responsible for the family. Once that principle has gone, many men might repudiate that responsibility; and, under the law, they would not be held responsible. That point of view must occur to all of us men. While we have sympathy with the claims which have been put forward, the Government cannot alter the whole of the principle because of this one phase. They must deal with the whole subject. It is from that point of view that I hope that the Minister will deal with the matter in his reply.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Has the hon. Member noted that the rates cover single men and single women; and also that in the case of married men and women, there are dependants' allowances, which are equal for both men and women? Does not that cut the. ground away from under his case that the extra remuneration is given because of family responsibility?

Sir F. Fremantle: No; I was dealing with the case put forward by the women Members, who spoke as though what is the primary cause did not exist.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: My name has been associated with this Prayer, and I thought I was the only sprat in the House of Commons which the ladies had managed to capture. I was very glad, however, to see that there was a mackerel over there in the person of my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). Therefore, the contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) that it would be an entirely sex division is not strictly accurate, because there are at least a few Members associated with the hon. Members who have moved the Prayer. I apologise to the House that I was not present in the early part of the Debate, but I want to endorse what has been said more particularly by the hon. Member for Moseley.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions in his heart is sound, but he is confronted with the enormous difficulties with which a Minister of Pensions must be confronted at the present time, and these difficulties will obviously become greater as the war goes on. I shall not envy him or whoever


may be following him in his position after the war, but I contend that the disparity at the present moment between the figures given for single men and single women is too great. I was very surprised to see my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) taking up the attitude he did, because I usually agree with him on these subjects. As a medical man, for many years in practice before I came to this House, I was in close touch with the work done by women, especially those of the nursing profession, who have suffered enormously since the war and who are making sacrifices in the hospitals of London and throughout the country. It is now rather late in the day to support a contention that you can substantiate the disparity between the position of women and men as affected by this war. Women have to bear the same sacrifices as men, and in fact more sacrifices in many ways, in the sense that they have perhaps children more immediately dependent upon them for whose welfare they are directly concerned.
I do not think that the Government really can carry this to its logical conclusion by adhering to the figures to which my right hon. Friend adheres at the present time, and without delaying the House I would like simply to endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh and of my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley that, while my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions may not at the moment be able to promise that he will be able to vary or alter these figures, he will, in order to avoid a Division on a matter which creates ill-feeling, as it naturally will, at any rate give the assurance to the House that during the next few days he will consider the whole matter in the light of the discussion which has taken place.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: rose—

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this moment. I cannot close the Debate, and if the hon. Lady wants to speak after me, she can do so, but I think that it is just about time that I came in here and cleared the air. There have been so many' misrepresentations made that it is well that we should have a review of the whole posi-

tion and get down to realities. I have thoroughly enjoyed the Debate as far as it has gone. I have never heard more eloquent speeches, though without the usual amount of accurate facts to back up the eloquence. Still, that is what one expects in Debates which must of necessity arouse the sentiments of many of us. I am glad to know that many hon. Members realise that I try to administer my job with sympathy, and there is nothing with which I have had to deal in the course of the time during which I have been at the Ministry of Pensions that has given me more food for thought than this particular question. I can assure the hon. Ladies who have moved this Prayer that it has not been for want of consideration or of sympathy in regard to this question that I brought forward the revised scheme, but it is really because I was up against hard facts.
May I make one or two corrections, because I believe that even those who have inadvertently dropped into these errors would like "to know the real position? The hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), who put her case with"great skill and eloquence, when she talked about the allowances, fell into an error. She gave the case of the widowed woman with children who was injured 100 per cent, and quoted the figure of 38s. a week as the household income. Actually it is 43s. 9d., made up of 24s. 2d. that the woman would get, and 8s. 4d., 6s. 3d. and 5s. for the three children, making altogether 19s. 9d. for the children.

Mrs. Tate: I realise that I made that error, and I apologise, but the fact still remains that a man in similar circumstances gets 10s. a week more. So although my actual figure of income coming into the home is wrong, the differentiation between a woman and a man in similar circumstances is quite accurate and correct.

Sir W. Womersley: I was not making a point of that, but I wanted it to be clearly stated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If we are going to ask that women should carry on with a smaller amount, and where there is a difference between men and women, one would like to see the correct figure given in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I merely wanted to correct it. Let me make a correction of a little misunderstanding. It is assumed that a single woman, or a widowed woman with children, would not


get anything for her dependants. The scheme provides that parents of a single woman who have been dependent upon her, if the' can prove dependency, can make a claim for compensation. The statement was made that they are to be left entirely out in the cold, but that is not entirely the case.

Dr. Summerskill: If the woman is supporting an incapacitated husband, does he get an allowance?

Sir W. Womersley: I am afraid that we cannot provide pensions for husbands. It is going a little too far. There will not be many cases of that kind anyhow, and if they come along—I have not met one yet—we shall possibly be able to deal with them. In order to give a real idea of the effect of this scheme, I am afraid that I shall have to ask hon. Members to allow me to go back a little into history. I would say to the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) that I do not resent anything that she has said at all, but I do take a little exception to her statement that I have had to withdraw this and to withdraw that. The real position is that I came into this office with a clear and an open mind, prepared to hear arguments from all sides, whether from lady Members of the House or from male Members, and from representative bodies outside. When I brought forward the scheme it was unique in the history of the world. There had never been such a scheme before, and therefore there was no precedent upon which to go. With regard to Service schemes there was the experience of the last war, but this was entirely new. I made it clear in my statement in this House that I did not close my mind to the fact that the scheme did not represent the final word and that I hoped to alter, revise and improve it from time to time. That is the reason why we had to bring forward an amended scheme, and I am prepared to bring forward another amended scheme in another few months in the light of my experience in handling this problem. Any man who said that a scheme of this kind is perfect would be speaking foolishly, because such a scheme has never been tried before in the history of the world.
When I had some experience of that scheme I realised that it would be wise to alter and revise it. We had a Debate in this House on the question of the

woman's position under this scheme and the plea put forward on that occasion was on behalf of the married women of the country. To-day I have not heard a word about them and I am rather astounded because I expected to hear a good deal. The plea of the hon. Lady who moved the Prayer was that we should provide for everyone other than the housewife and she asked, "If a housewife was injured what would we do for her?" We have provided in the first scheme that something should be done for the housewife. We realised, as we must all realise, that when a man marries a woman he takes her "for better or worse, in sickness and health" and that he has a responsibility. But we felt that if the housewife was injured we ought to do something for the man as regards provision for someone to come into the house and relieve the injured woman of her housework so that she could rest and get better. We thought it was an idea that would appeal to the women of the country.
Those of us who have had a good deal of experience of working-class households, know that a woman may be injured or sick and may yet carry on her housework, whereas if she is employed and is sick, she will go on to health insurance. She will go on working in her own house because she does not want the expense of someone coming in. Often she does not like anyone coming in. We therefore said to the man, "Provided you bring someone in to the house to do your wife's work, we will provide the money." But the women of this country did not want it. I had deputations on the matter from various women's organisations and they said, "We object to you giving the money to the man; we think it ought to be given to the woman." When I asked whether we ought to give money to the husband so that he could pay bills, they said, "No; the woman must have the money." They said that the money should not be given as a condition of someone being brought into the house to do the work, but that it should be handed to the woman to do what she liked with it, because it was her compensation for injury.
I had to go carefully into this matter and finally decided to revise this scheme so that something should be done on behalf of these women. In the Debate


to-day no one has raised the question of the non-gainfully-employed person, which was the burden of the previous complaint and the main subject on which a deputation, representing 2,500,000, came to see me. The deputation consisted of over 40 ladies and I listened carefully to all they had to say. I hope that the ladies here to-day will listen carefully to what I have to say [Interruption]. I would like to make my speech.

Miss Ward: My right hon. Friend must not make misstatements.

Sir W. Womersley: I am not making misstatements.

Dr. Summerskill: It is complete misrepresentation. I was there.

Mrs. Tate: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I apologise for interrupting the Minister, who is, I realise, making a very difficult case, but when he says that that was the main burden of the plea of the deputation, he is wrong. The women Members agreed among themselves, in order to avoid repetition, each to take one particular point, both at the deputation and in the Debate in this House. It was left to me on both occasions to put the case of the non-gainfully employed woman. It was left entirely to me; no other ladies mentioned it and therefore to say it was the main burden of our plea is sheer misrepresentation or forgetfulness.

Sir W. Womersley: That is a peculiar point of Order, although I am glad the hon. Lady has raised it. She entirely misunderstands me. I am not talking about her deputation or her speech. The hon. Lady must not think that her deputation was the only deputation I ever saw.

Dr. Summerskill: I was a member of the other deputation.

Sir W. Womersley: I hope the hon. Lady will try to prove that women are really equal to men by keeping quiet. I was referring to the first Debate we had in this House. It was in the second Debate, that the hon. Lady the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) raised the question of the housewives, and this was the main burden of the complaint on that particular day. I was attempting to come to the hon. Lady's point but she

interrupted me too soon. However, we will come to that now. It is true that the deputation did put different points to me and that one question was that of the gainfully employed woman and the difference in the rate between a man and a woman. There is a simple explanation of that and I want to make that explanation now, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) and others will understand why there is this difference between 28s. and 35s. Origin ally the rates as fixed were not satisfactory to the workers in this country be cause the Government had taken away from them their right to sue under the Workmen's Compensation Acts for damage by enemy action. Having taken away their right, the plea— a proper plea — was put forward that the Government should substitute in its place an arrangement which would give those men injured by enemy action a sum equal to that given to those injured in the course of their work.
No one can deny that that is not a perfectly legitimate claim to make and that matter was taken into consideration. I say without any hesitation that I thought it my duty to consult not only with the accredited representatives of the trade unions, but also with the accredited representatives of the employers' associations, because the Government had taken away the responsibility which was their' sunder the Workmen's Compensation Acts. In the meantime the House of Commons approved the new Workmen's Compensation Act, which fixed rates higher than those which obtained before and when the suggestion is made that we are a long way out of date, I can assure the hon. Lady the Member, for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) that we are up to date because we have fixed rates that are up to the new and not the old standard. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, it is true that the maximum for a single man or woman is the same, but we had to decide whether we would carry out workmen's compensation practice purely and simply. I had to face the position that if we carried out workmen's compensation practice alone, we should have had to have an army of inspectors going round inspecting wage books for the purpose of finding out what was the average wage of a given person during the 12 months preceding the accident. Bearing in mind the many cases which we thought we might have to


deal with, and which experience has proved we have had to deal with, that method would have meant, first of all, the employment of many people on the job, and secondly, it would have been an inquisition into the earnings of the people which, althought it might be desirable in the case of a dispute between an employer and employe, we felt would be very un desirable in the case of a Government Department dealing with a pensions scheme.
The only way in which we could meet the position was to say that we would take the average. We have taken the average, and it works out at 35s. for a single man and something considerably Jess than 28s. for a single woman. It is true that, having fixed the figure at 28s., which is in excess of the average, and benefits many thousands of women, a few women will have to make a small sacrifice for the sake of those who were getting the lower rates of pay and who are, therefore, entitled under the Workmen's Compensation Acts to the lower rate of compensation. This is the only reason for the difference. We wanted to keep the scheme in accordance with workmen's compensation practice, brought up to date by the latest Act of Parliament As far as we are concerned, it is not a question of any sex differentiation. We are paying them more than they would get on the average under workmen's compensation. I think the reason I have given is a good and sound reason. I have dealt with the question of the gainfully employed. The only point at issue concerns the difference in rates of compensation for men and women. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley will know from his experience of industrial affairs that we are not far wrong in our calculation. If circumstances change, and it can be shown to me that the figure is not a fair one, I shall always be prepared to consider the matter and recommend to the Government that a change be made.

Sir P. Hannon: My difficulty is this. A5 my right hon. Friend knows, we have had a violent enemy attack in a certain Midland town. Lives were sacrificed. I cannot see why the life of a woman sacrificed in these circumstances ought to be compensated for on a lower scale than the lives of the men who were sacrificed.

Sir W. Womersley: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me why in some of the in-

dustries which he knows women are paid less wages. Then we can deal with the matter. I warn hon. Members that if we departed from the workmen's compensation practice, we should get on to very dangerous ground indeed. That is my view after very carefully considering the matter, I might have said, "Never mind workmen's compensation; we will deal with them exactly as though they were soldiers and sailors.". But we have tried to conform with workmen's compensation, and to bring the Services on to a comparable basis to this. That is what I want to do, and what I intend to do. If it were a question of departing altogether from a practice that was laid down by the House and approved by the trade unions of the country and also by the employers' organisations, I think we should get on to very dangerous ground. Let us get it out of our heads that this is a fight between women and men. I hope the right hon. Member will not consider dividing the House on sex lines. In my opinion, that would be a bad job for the country and for the war effort. I have given a straightforward answer with regard to the gainfully employed. It is not a question of sex differentiation, but of compensating them on the same lines as under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and I think that is as much as one can expect the Government to do at the moment.
The hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) raised a point in connection with those who are gainfully employed. That point was argued at great length, with myself in the chair, between myself and the trade union representatives. It was pointed out that the wealthy newspaper proprietors of this country had agreed to have a special scheme of their own for compensation for their workers. They were providing the scheme and the money themselves, and they were not asking the State to contribute. We considered whether the scheme could be carried further and applied to other Indus-tries. But I found that in dealing with representatives of the trade unions it all depended on which trade unions they represented. Some people thought we ought to go to as much as £4 5s. a week, but when I asked whether they thought professional men with £1,500 a year should be brought in, they said "No." They did not represent labourers' unions,


but skilled craftsmen's unions. I know there is a good deal to be said on behalf of a man working in a very dangerous occupation, such as on munitions, who may feel aggrieved because he will not receive more compensation for it if he is injured as a result of enemy action. It often appears that one man is taking a bigger risk than another, whereas in actual practice it has been found that that has not been the case. Often the fellow who has tried to dodge it has got off very badly.
I should now like to inform the House how we arrived at the figure for non-gainfully employed. We realised that there would be a certain number of people who could be described as non-gainfully employed who would suffer severe hardship if they were injured as a result of enemy action. The term "non-gainfully employed" was a new one, and when it was brought into this scheme many people wondered where it came from. The lawyers had to find some definition. At first, most people thought the term meant people who were retired on superannuation, or people who had money invested and were living on the interest. When it came to actual practice we found that it included old age pensioners, and also people who had been unemployed for so long that they had sacrificed all benefits ' under the Ministry of Labour's scheme. It also included housewives— those engaged in no other occupation than that of looking after the household. It occurred to many people that these old age pensioners ought to have some allowance made to them over and above their ordinary pension if they were injured, because they would have to have extra help and extra comforts.
There was a strong case put forward for men who were unfortunately unable to obtain employment and had run out of benefit. These could have been dealt with quite easily, but there was also that very strong plea put forward in this House, and by deputation after deputation which came to me, on behalf of the housewife. After due consideration it was finally settled that the non-gainfully employed person should be included in the new scheme, and that we should make a rate which would apply to both the housewife and any other person non-gainfully employed.

In dealing with this, I admit that we made a bit of a mistake. There was that difference of 7s. a week, taking the average under workmen's compensation awards of the gainfully employed. We took the 7s. as a difference, but on reflection I realised that while it was the same amount, it was a far greater percentage. Therefore we altered the rate to 16s. 4d. for women, and it is quite true, as has been stated, that we allowed a little more for men.
Why have we fixed that rate? Again I state that it is not a question of sex differentiation, but of obligation. Our experience has shown in all the claims we have had up to date that what I thought would happen has happened, namely, that the bulk of the claims under the non-gainfully employed are on behalf of housewives— those women who have husbands who should be responsible for their maintenance in the ordinary way. We found that something like 84 per cent, of the cases so far received are from married women. Surely it will not be argued that a married woman who is not engaged in any other occupation, and whose husband ought to be able to look after her, should receive as much compensation as those who are earning their own living. Therefore we found that 84.7 per cent, of the claims up to date have come from married women. I do not think there is a case which can be put forward that their money should be equal to that of a man. The figure for single women is 6.8 per cent., and I am hoping that many of these single women will find employment in the future and that that figure will therefore be reduced. However, it is a very small percentage.
When we come to the men non-gain fully employed, we find the percentage of claims for single men is 1.7. Actually we have had only seven from all the blitzed places in the country. We know that they will receive a little more by way of compensation, but it does not amount to much. Then we have the married men and widowers. The figure for this class is 6.8 per cent. It must be remembered that these married men and widowers have responsibilities of households and also in many other respects. That, I think, en titles them to a little more consideration than is given to a married woman who has a husband and her own home. The money is provided in her case so that she can have someone extra in the house to do


her work and save her trouble and hard ship.
We have great responsibilities in addition to compensation for both gainfully and non-gainfully employed men and women. In the first case there is free hospital treatment. There are many other things which are done for them at Government expense which also involve enormous expenditure. It is all given freely, and rightly so.

Mr. Charleton: Do I understand the Minister to say that these women have special facilities in hospitals? As I understand it, there is no free treatment in hospitals to-day.

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member is chairman of one of my principal hospitals. Surely he knows that persons injured in an air raid go to the Ministry's hospitals? The first obligation of the State is to get a person back into health, and the second obligation is to provide a pension if this cannot be done. I am glad to say that, including the hospital with which my hon. Friend is associated, we have been doing very good work. Let me give the House full details. Insured persons arc entitled to free medical treatment in hospitals or elsewhere as may be required. The emergency medical ser vices of the Ministry of Health are responsible for providing this treatment where they can. We are actually running one or two hospitals for them, and many casualties have been taken into our own hospitals, which we maintain primarily for ex-Service men.
Then we come to the children. They are compensated in the case of the gain fully employed, and they are compensated in the case of the woman worker. If she has children, there is compensation for them, and provision is made on their behalf. The same applies to orphans. When, as it has happened in something like 600 cases, the father and mother have been killed, we do not leave the orphans to the mercy of the world, hand out the compensation and say we have finished with them. We carry on. We realise that, if they are evacuated children, in an area where they are in good hands it is as well to leave them there. On the other hand, if there are relatives who wish to take them, and we feel that the home is a suitable one, we make use of voluntary helpers, and some women

members of our staff deal with this particular problem It is women's work, and it is being done very well indeed. If we cannot find them the right homes with relatives, it is our responsibility. I should like to take the opportunity of saying that I have had an enormous number of letters from good-hearted people offering to take these children. I do not want them to think that, because we are not able to send them children by return, we are ignoring their offers. The problem is not a serious one at present, because so far relatives have taken them in large numbers. I want these good-hearted people to realise that their names are on our register, and when it is necessary we shall communicate with them and see to it that the children are put into proper homes.
I have listened to the Debate with very great interest. I am glad in the second place because it has given me an opportunity of explaining how these rates were arrived at and of refuting the statement that has been put forward that the Minister of Pensions is one of those folk who think women are inferior to men and therefore he is not going to compensate them. I have never made that statement, and I never shall. But, on the broad question of sex equality, I feel that this is not the time and place for it to be debated and decided. It is a matter of great principle, and I am not prepared to offer an opinion to-day. It is certainly worth while bringing it forward as a major subject, but not as a side issue in a pensions Debate. Do not let any of us regard this Debate as anything to do with sex differentiation. Do not let us have a Division on it, as was suggested, as a matter of sex differentiation. You can deal with that at the right and proper time, and it is worth while, because I know that very strong views are held in both directions, but it is a matter of major policy and should not be brought in as a side issue on a pensions scheme. I am satisfied that so far, in the light of my experience, I have given justice, and that is what the hon. Lady asked for— true justice to those who have unfortunately been injured by enemy action. It is the most generous scheme of compensation, given freely without the payment of any premium, that any country has ever offered to its citizens. How far it is going to carry us I should not like to predict. I hope that it will not mean bringing us into a state when there can be no pensions


for anyone because of there being nothing with which to pay them. But I do feel that, having made this generous gesture, the Government ought not to be subjected to too severe criticism on minor points.
I say to my hon. Friends who have moved this Prayer, and to my hon. Friends on both sides of the House, that I am quite prepared to consider carefully all that has been said in this Debate, that I am prepared to hear opinions at any time, and that this is not the last word on civil compensation. I am certain of that, because in the light of experience I am bound to find ways and means of improving things, and if I can improve them, I shall do so; because it is my desire not to go down to history as a Minister of Pensions who was a petty-minded, pettifogging, mean person, but, on the other

Division No. 16.]
AYES.



Barr, J.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Hardie, Agnes
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bevan, A.
Harvey, T. E.
Sloan, A.


Brooke, H.
Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horabin, T. L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Charleton, H. C.
Hughes, Moelwyn A..
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Isaacs, G. A.
Wright, Wing Commander J. A. C.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lipson, D. L.



George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Granville, E. L.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mrs. Tate and Dr. Summerskill.


Hannah, I. C.
Rathbone, Beatrice F. (Bodmin)





NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Ridley, G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Grenfell, D. R.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Grimston, R. V.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h. Univ.)
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Assheton, R.
Henderson, J. J. (Leeds, N.E.)
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hopkinson, A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Bernays, R. H.
Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.
Tomlinson, G.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Johnston, Rt Hn. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Touche, G. C.


Blair, Sir R.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k Newington)
Wakefield, W. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Lathan, G.
Waterhouse, Capt. C.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Lloyd, G. W. (Ladywood)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Caine, G. R. Hall
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Mabane, W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)



Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.
Windsor, W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Montague, F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Drewe, C.
Munro, P.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W. J.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwich, W.)


Ede, J. C.
Paling,W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Peake, O.



Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Pym, L. R.
Major Sir James Edmondson and Major Dugdale.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)



Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)